Life Preservation in Genesis and Exodus: An Exegetical Study of the Tebāh
by Joshua Joel Spoelstra
Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Theology at Stellenbosch University
Supervisor: Prof. Louis C. Jonker
December 2013
i
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
DECLARATION
By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.
Date: 31 August 2013
Copyright © 2013 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved
ii
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ABSTRACT
hbt, that rare word appropriated for the vessels of Noah and Moses and nowhere else in the Hebrew Bible, seems to indicate an inter-textual relationship and invites investigation; in fact, hbt has undergone very little treatment in past scholarship. There are several oddities to this seemingly straightforward problem, though. The two vessels are drastically different from one another, both aesthetically and contextually; the word is in fact a loan word, not native to the Hebrew language; the term in the LXX is disharmonious in each respective story: kibwto/j for Noah and qi=bij for Moses. What had the author(s)/redactor(s) in mind when making the hbt lexical link; and why have the Septuagint translators severed the terminological nexus? After thorough synchronic and diachronic exegesis of the Flood (Gen 6-9*) and Foundling (Ex 2*) narratives, it is argued that the donor language from whence the Hebrews loaned hbt is the Egyptian ḏbȝ.t meaning ―coffer, coffin; Götterschrein.‖ Whereas the lexeme in question is Egyptian in origin, the form and content of the Flood and the Foundling narratives are germane to Akkadian–Babylonian literature. This hybrid is fitting and provocative in light of the Levantine milieu of which the Hebrew people were a part. The Priestly writer, actually, in all likelihood originally referred to Noah‘s vessel as an Nwr), like that of the ark of the covenant; Later the non-Priestly compositor/redactor switched that term out for hbt and used the same in Ex 2*, thus creating the parallel. (Incidentally, the LXX translators are probably trying to counteract that later redaction and bring Noah‘s ark and the ark of the covenant back into the original lexical coherence). That hbt is a Götterschrein portents to Moses being a saved saviour who receives the sacred structures of Tabernacle and ark of the covenant from God as well as being the human counterpart and mediator of the Sinaitic covenant; regarding the flood hero Noah, his hbt is a Götterschrein in that it is a sacred structure atop a mountain, like a ziggurat, where he is offering sacrifice as a priest to God who is soothed, and receives (along with his sons) a covenant from God. For hbt to be a ―coffin‖ is a polemical usage, since, in each narrative, the protagonist(s) enter the contra-coffin and their life is preserved while everyone else outside it dies in death-waters (the rest of humanity, male Hebrew babies); subsequently, the protagonist(s) re-emerge into a new world. Diachronically speaking, this phenomenon was the experience of nP (and P) and contemporaries having recently experienced life preservation by sovereign God in the form of emerging out of exile safely unto new life in a new world. Thus, hbt is a terminus technicus for a life preserving receptacle in the Hebrew Bible.
iii
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ABSTRACT
hbt, die skaars woord wat gebruik word om die vaartuie van Noag en Moses aan te dui, maar nêrens anders in die Hebreeuse Bybel gebruik word nie, dui waarskynlik ‗n intertekstuele verhouding aan. Die term hbt het egter nog weinig aandag in vorige navorsing ontvang. Daar blyk ‗n hele aantal vreemdhede te wees aan hierdie skynbaar eenvoudige probleem. Die vaartuie ter sprake is totaal verskillend, beide esteties en kontekstueel-gesproke. Die term is inderdaad ‗n leenwoord wat nie eie aan die Hebreeuse taal is nie. Die ekwivalente terme in die LXX verskil ook tussen die twee verhale: kibwto/j vir Noag se vaartuig en qi=bij vir Moses se mandjie. Wat het die outeur(s)/redaktor(s) in gedagte gehad toe die leksikale skakel d.m.v. hbt tussen die verhale bewerkstellig is? En waarom het die Septuaginta-vertalers hierdie terminologiese skakel weer opgehef? Nadat deeglike sinkroniese en diakroniese eksegese van die Vloedverhaal (Gen 6-9*) en die verhaal oor Moses in die mandjie (Ex 2*) gedoen is, word geargumenteer dat die skenkertaal waarvandaan die Hebreeuse skrywer(s) die woord hbt geleen het Egipties is, en wel die woord ḏbȝ.t wat ―houer, doodskis, Götterschrein‖ kan beteken. Hoewel die lekseem ter sprake van Egiptiese oorsprong is, herinner die Vloedverhaal en Mosesverhaal eerder aan Akkadies-Babiloniese literatuur. Hierdie hibriede verhale blyk gepas en uitdagend te funksioneer in die milieu van die Levant waar die Hebreërs gewoon het. Die Priesterlike skrywer het na alle waarskynlikheid oorspronklik na Noag se boot as ‗n Nwr) verwys— dieselfde term wat ook vir die ark van die verbond gebruik is. Die nie-Priesterlike skrywer het egter later daardie woord vervang met hbt, en het dieselfde term in Ex 2* gebruik om ‗n parallel te bewerkstellig. (Dit blyk dan dat die LXX-vertalers hierdie verandering in die latere redaksie weer wou herstel ten einde Noag se ark en die ark van die verbond in die oorspronklike samehang te bring.) Dat die hbt as ‗n soort Götterschrein aangedui word, word Moses aangebied as ‗n geredde redder wat die heilige strukture van Tabernakel en ark van die verbond van God ontvang, maar tegelykertyd ook as menslike teenparty en bemiddelaar van die Sinaïtiese verbond. Met verwysing na die held van die Vloedverhaal, Noag, word die hbt as ‗n Götterschrein aangedui deurdat dit as heilige struktuur bo-op ‗n berg voorgestel word—soos ‗n ziggurat—waar Noag as priester ‗n offerande aan God bring waardeur God tevrede gestel word, en waar hy (saam met sy seuns) ‗n verbond van God ontvang. Deurdat die hbt ook die assosiasie van doodskis oproep, word ‗n polemiese gesprek gevoer deurdat die protagonis(te) in elke verhaal die kontra-doodskis betree, en hul lewens bewaar word terwyl alles daarbuite in die doodswaters sterf (die res van die mensdom, die Hebreeuse babas). Gevolglik herrys die protagonis(te) in ‗n nuwe wêreld. Diakronies beskou reflekteer hierdie verskynsel die ervaring van die nie-Priesterlike en Priesterlike skrywers en hul tydgenote wat in die onlangse verlede lewensbewaring ervaar het deurdat die soewereine God hulle uit die ballingskap laat herrys het tot lewe in ‗n nuwe wêreld. hbt is dus terminus technicus vir ‗n lewensbewarende houer in die Hebreeuse Bybel.
iv
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is my privilege and joy to acknowledge various peoples and institutions that have aided me in the completion of this dissertation and doctoral program. Initially, I would like to recognize the following libraries of which I made use: University of Idaho (Moscow, ID), Washington State University (Pullman, WA), Whitworth University (Spokane, WA), Gonzaga University (Spokane, WA), Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (S. Hamilton, MA), and Stellenbosch University; and thanks to the Interlibrary Loan staff at Lewiston Public Library (Lewiston, ID). Also, thank you to Gordon L. Isaac (Ph.D., Marquette) and Maggie Bolon for securing key resources for me and Ehud M. Garcia (Ph.D., Fuller) for helping me with translation of the Spanish article. Special thanks to my supervisor Louis C. Jonker for excellent direction, critique, and encouragement. I further appreciated the participation of external examiners professors Jurie le Roux (Univeristy of Pretoria) and Konrad Schmid (Univeristy of Zürich) in the oral examination. I thank Church of New Hope (Lewiston, ID) for granting me sabbatical in order to finish out that which was requisite of the doctoral program in Stellenbosch, South Africa. And I cannot express my gratitude enough to my wife, Julie, for all the love and support and inspiration she has given me; throughout this dissertation she bore our three girls, and cared for them solely during my residency/sabbatical in Stellenbosch—I love you. Finally, Soli Deo Gloria. ―The LORD will reign forever and ever!‖ (Ex 15.18)
v
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CONTENTS
Abbreviations viii-x
Chapter 1 – Introduction 1-15 1. The Situation 1 2. Survey of Scholarship 2 2.1 : Origin and Etymology 2 2.2 in Genesis 3 2.3 in Exodus 4 2.4 Juxtaposed 5 2.5 The Need for Further Scholarship of 6 3. The Problem 8 3.1 Presuppositions and Hypotheses 8 3.2 Methodology and Approach 12
Chapter 2 – Noah’s (Genesis 6-9*) 16-121 0. Textkritik 16 1. Synchrony 26 1.1 Literary and Linguistic Analyses 26 1.2 Narrative Criticism 37 1.3 Summary 66 2. Diachrony 66 2.1 Literarkritik 66 2.2 Formen/Gattungenkritik 74 2.3 Komposition/Redaktionskritik 110 2.4 Summary 120
Chapter 3 – Moses’ (Exodus 2*) 122-190 0. Textkritik 122 1. Synchrony 126 1.1 Literary and Linguistic Analyses 126 1.2 Narrative Criticism 132 1.3 Summary 157 2. Diachrony 157 2.1 Literarkritik 157 2.2 Formen/Gattungenkritik 163 2.3 Komposition/Redaktionskritik 181 2.4 Summary 189
vi
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Chapter 4 – : Its Donor Language and Hebrew Reception 191-220 1. Akkadian 192 2. Egyptian 197 Excursus: Coptic Tradition and Greek Rescension 206 3. The Levant 215
Chapter 5 – vis-à-vis (Exodus 15*) 221-280 0. Textkritik 222 1. Synchrony 227 1.1 Structural Anaylsis 228 1.2 Poetics Analysis 233 1.3 Summary 237 2. Diachrony 237 2.1 Literarkritik 236 2.2 Formen/Gattungenkritik 242 2.3 Komposition/Redaktionskritik 270 2.4 Summary 278
Chapter 6 – Theological Implications 281-310 1. Theology Proper 282 2. Biblical Theology 285 2.1 Salvation History 285 2.2 Sanctuary 291 2.3 Typologies 298 2.4 Theological Aspects of 308
Chapter 7 – Summary & Conclusion 311-315
Appendicies 316-324
Bibliography 325-350
vii
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ABBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible (Commentary) ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary ABRL The Anchor Bible Reference Library AJSL The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature ANE Ancient Near East ANES Ancient Near Eastern Studies ANET Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament AOS American Oriental Series ASOR American Schools of Oriental Research (Dissertation Series) ATM Altes Testament und Moderne AThANT Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments ATSAT Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament BA Biblical Archaeologist BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research BDB Francis Brown, S.R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006. BETL Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium BHS Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia BiLiSe Bible and Literature Series Bib Biblica BIS Biblical Interpretation Series BN Biblische Notizen BO Biblica et Orientalia (Sacra Scriptura Antiquitatibus Orientalibus Illustrata) BS Bibliotheca sacra BWANT Beitrӓge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament BZ Biblische Zeitschrift BZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft CBC The Cambridge Bible Commentary CBET Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Monograph Series CC Continental Commentary ch(s) Chapter(s) CTJ Calvin Theological Journal CTR Criswell Theological Review D Deuteronomic (Source) DBAG Frederick William Danker, et al. eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. DtrH Deuteronomistic History DVJs Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte E Elohist (Source) EC Epworth Commentaries ECC Eerdmans Critical Commentary ET English Translation f(f). (and) following FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FOTL The Forms of the Old Testament Literature GBS Guides to Biblical Scholarship GKC E. Kautzsch, ed., Gesenius‟ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. HALOT Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 2 vols. London: Brill, 2001.
viii
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
HBM Hebrew Bible Monographs HCOT Historical Commentary on the Old Testament HeBAI Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel HTR Harvard Theological Review HSM Harvard Semitic Monographs HSS Harvard Semitic Studies IBT Interpreting Biblical Texts ICC International Critical Commentary Int Interpretation ITL International Theological Library J Yahwist (Source) JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JHS Journal of Hebrew Scriptures JJS Journal for Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JNSL Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Joüon-Muraoka Paul Joüon, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. vol. II Part Three: Syntax. Translated by T. Muraoka. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996. JSJSupp Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JTS Journal of Theological Studies JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa LAI Library of Ancient Israel LBS The Library of Biblical Studies LCL Loeb Classical Library LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible / Old Testament Studies LS Henry George Liddel and Robert Scott A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. LTQ Lexington Theological Quarterly LXX Septuagint Mp Masora parva Ms(s) Manuscript(s) MBI Methods in Biblical Interpretation MT Masoretic Text Non-P/nP Non-Priestly (Material) NAC The New American Commentary NCB New Century Bible (Commentary) NCBC The New Cambridge Bible Commentary NHS Nag Hammadi Studies NIBC New International Biblical Commentary NICOT New International Commentary on the Old Testament NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OTG Old Testament Guides OTL Old Testament Library OTM Old Testament Message (A Biblical-Theological Commentary) OTS Oudtestamentische Studiën OTSSA Old Testament Society of South Africa P Priestly (Source) RNBC Readings: A New Biblical Commentary RQ Restoration Quarterly SAACT State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts SAC Studies in Antiquity & Christianity SBAB Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbӓnde SBL Society of Biblical Literature
ix
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
SBLAIIL Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature SBLEJIL Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature SBLSCS Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies SBLSymS Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series SBLRBS Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Studies SBT Studies in Biblical Theology SBTS Sources for Biblical and Theological Study SHR Studies in the History of Religions (Numen Bookseries) SOTBT Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology SCJ Stone-Campbell Journal SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament SP Samarian Pentateuch SSN Studia Semitica Neerlandica SVTQ St. Vladimir‟s Theological Quarterly TBN Themes in Biblical Narrative TBS Tools for Biblical Studies TDOT Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament TLOT Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament TMSJ The Master‟s Seminary Journal TS Theological Studies TSMJ Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentary v(v) Verse(s) VT Vetus Testamentum VTS Vetus Testamentum Supplements WBC Word Biblical Commentary WC Westminster Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal WW Word & World YNER Yale Near Eastern Researchers ZA Zeitschrift für Althebraistik ZÄS (ÄZ) Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft ZEB The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible ZKT Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie
SYMBOLS
√ The root, or stem, of a verb || Parallels (re: lexeme, etc.) * A portion of a verse, chapter, or book + And; in combination with = Equals; Is (from) ≈ Equivalent to/with × By (Times) > Greater than
x
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1. The Situation It is axiomatic for the reader of Classical Hebrew to cognize that the term used of Noah‘s vessel is the same word employed for the vessel in which infant Moses was laid: hbt, . Further, is not penned anywhere else in the TANAKH aside from the Noah and Moses contexts.1 Based upon the limited usage (in occurrence and in rarefied settings), appears to form a lexical link between the Flood Narrative and the Moses Infancy events; the hypothesis that the two stories are linked together by means of an otherwise unattested term may well be a grounded one by virtue of its presence through the longevity of textual preservation and numerous redactions. If a lexical nexus is not happenstance, then what does the parallel convey? When compared and contrasted, there are far more dissimilar elements between these two s than commonality (e.g., size, number of occupants, etc.); yet, with a host of differences between them how have they been termed identically? What compounds the perplexity of the nexus between these two texts is that the LXX translates the word in question differently. Whereas the MT exclusively employs one term for the vessel of Noah and Moses, the Septuagint renders Noah‘s vessel as kibwto/j and Moses‘ vessel is a qi=bij.2 qi=bijfinds its only occurrences in Ex 2.3, 5, 63 and seems to hold a more specialized meaning than other small vessels (e.g. basket, box, etc.); on the other hand, kibwto/j is penned not only in the Flood Narrative but refers also to several wooden structures throughout the LXX (and Greek NT), including Noah‘s vessel,4 the Ark of the Covenant,5 and chests or boxes.6
1 Occurrences of : Gen 614, 15, 16, 18, 19; 71, 7, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 23; 81, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 16, 19; 910, 18; Ex 23, 5 (R. Kittel, ed., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997]). 2 A similar phenomenon appears in the Aramaic witness ()twbyt) where it has the same Gen and Ex references as MT (Alexander Sperber, ed., The Bible in Aramaic, vol.1 Pentateuch [Targum Onkelos] [Leiden: Brill, 1959]); additionally 1 Sam 6.8, 11, 15 which distinctly speak of a certain box next to the Ark of the
Covenant. Also Syriac maintains the lexical nexus: )twBQ (International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament–The Peshiṭta Institute, eds., The Old Testament in Syriac, pt.1, fasc.1–Genesis–Exodus [Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977]). 3 There is one additional occurrence of qi=bij than in Ex, but this reference (Ex 2.6) makes explicit the otherwise implied direct object. (qi=bijabsent from Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and NT.) 4 There is one more occurrence of in Genesis over against (see n.1 above); the additional LXX reference (Gen 7.16), however, merely makes explicit the assumed direct object of MT. 1
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Did the Septuagint translators overlook a meaningful lexical nexus and thereby compromise a lucid connection which (theologically?) bound Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* together? Or, was there never a significant association to begin with, an association that would not loose a particular thrust when glossed? Or still, were the Septuagint scholars cognizant of the link yet dissolved the identical nomenclature, along with its congruous images, in order to establish another spectrum of implications? Another series of questions arise when we consider that itself is in all likelihood a loanword (see §2); thus, were there notions associated with said nomenclature which were also integrated into the Hebrew language when it was adopted? If so, what were they; if not, what was jettisoned and/or altered? Such queries regarding the link between the Flood Narrative and the Moses Infancy Events shall occupy this present study; our premise is that must inculcate something of its purpose and theological implications, however elusive it may at first appear.
2. Survey of Scholarship 2.1 : Origin and Etymology Discussion concerning this field of study must commence by defining the term in question and assessing its related concepts. Before that can be done, though, it is critical to ascertaining the meaning and implications of first in its language of origin, for it is a loanword. Accordingly, is presumed to be most likely Egyptian7 in origins, or perhaps Akkadian-Babylonian,8 or still Eblaite.9 C. Cohen, in his article entitled ―Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies,‖ surveys and evaluates the various language and linguistic proposals for hbt made in recent history; in the end, Cohen is not satisfied with any of the proposals, Akkadian or Egyptian, for a concrete etymological or philological adjudication to be made
5 185 occurrences in Ex, Lev, Num, Deut, Josh, Jdg, (1&2) Sam, (1&2) Kgs, and (1&2) Chron. 6 2 Kgs 12.10, 11. Contra the doublet 2 Chron 24.8, 10, 11: (cf. John 12.6; 13.29). 7 BDB, 1061; S.R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (WC; London: Nethuen & Co., 1904), 87; Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 172; William H.C. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (AB 2; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1999), 149; Alexander Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (2nd ed.; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1949), 233. 8 Cf. Hermann Gunkel (Genesis [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997], 62) who equally offers Egyptian as an option, as does A.H. McNeile, The Book of Exodus (WC; London: Methuen & Co., 1908), 7. For the linguistic synecdoche concerning its wood, , see Nahum M. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (The Melton Research Center Series, vol.1; New York, N.Y.: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966), 45; Robert Davidson, Genesis 1-11 (CBC; Cambridge: University Press, 1973), 74. 9 Mitchell Dahood (―Eblaite and Biblical Hebrew,‖ CBQ [1982]: 21-22), in light of Ebla, notes how ―Hebrew terms once thought to be of Egyptian origin turn out to be old Canaanite‖; for example, ―tēbâ, ‗ark,‘ considered a probable loanword from Egyptian, appears as plural ti-ba-ti ìl-ìl, ‗arks of the gods,‘…ti-ba-ùKI / tibā-hū‟, ‗he is the Ark‘…and ìa-ti-baKI, ‗Ya is the Ark‘.‖ 2
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
10 for the source of hbt. Based on the amalgamation of linguistics, a variety of definitions have been proffered; the range is broad and can be categorized from general to increasingly more specific: box or chest,11 ark or ship,12 casket or coffin.13 Orthographical considerations are an interest for our scope insofar as it may elucidate any given cultural and religious ethos and the theological import thereof. 2.2 in Genesis
In Genesis 6.14, where hbt is first employed (canonically) and God‘s construction agenda is delineated, there are no less than four hapax legomena (so Mp): two are objects (rpeg oand
Myn@iqi) and two are otherwise unattested verbal tenses and personal forms of √rpk. Consequently, describing is not facile and opens a complex of issues. The sheer magnitude of the vessel that Noah was commanded by God to build has led G. von Rad to depict it as ―the strangest of all ships‖ because it is ―an enormous houseboat by ancient standards.‖14 Similarly, yet perhaps cavilling, H.J. Zobel insists, ―the ark is not a ship or a shiplike vessel, but a kind of houseboat, ‗intended simply to stay afloat, not to sail.‘‖15 R. Davidson remonstrates is ―certainly not an unusual word for a boat or ship.‖16 When comparing ancient Near East literature and language C. Westermann muses that ―in Gilg[amesh] XI a huge cubic box is called a ‗ship,‘ while in Gen 6 the ark, which is much more like a ship, is described as a chest.‖17 Furthermore, ―In the Babylonian story the ship is manned by sailors and helmsman. But in the Biblical story the ark floats along, cared for only by God, and in no danger of foundering, guided by His providence, that at last His wise and
10 Chayim Cohen, ―Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies,‖ JANESCU 4 (1972): 44-45. 11 Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 172; Bailey, ―Noah and the Ark,‖ ABD 4:1131; Douglas K. Stuart, Exodus (NAC 2; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holdman Publishers, 2006), 88 n.115; Sarna, Genesis (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia, Pa.: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 50; Julian Morgenstern, The Book of Genesis: A Jewish Interpretation (New York, N.Y.: Schocken Books, 1965), 82; Philippe Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18 (LBHOT, 391; London: T&T Clark, 2009), 15- 16. 12 Larry A. Mitchell, A Student‟s Vocabulary for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984), 33; B. Jacob, The First Book of the Bible: Genesis (eds. and trans. E.I. Jacob and W. Jacob, New York, N.Y.: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1974), 49; Susan Niditch, Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation (Studies in the Humanities, 6; Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985), 22-23; J.H. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (2nd ed.; London: Soncino Press, 1960), 26. 13 HALOT, 1678; BDB, 1061. These two lexicons give their entries in boldface type and italics, respectively; throughout when these are replicated it shall be done so in standard typeface for the sake of aesthetics. 14 Gerhard von Rad, Genesis (rev. ed.; OTL; trans. John H. Marks; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1961), 127. 15 H.J. Zobel, ―hbftIi,‖ TDOT 15:552. 16 Davidson, Genesis 1-11, 74. 17 Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11 (trans. J.J. Scullion; CC; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994), 420. 3
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
loving purpose might be fulfilled.‖18 Hence it may be that the Babylonian and Hebrew ―descriptions and designations each have their own history.‖19 Cogitating beyond the oddities of Noah‘s vessel as merely ―a huge floatable ‗box,‘‖20 one seeks to understand the purpose of the amongst the Deluge. Genesis makes known God‘s purpose for the flood, i.e. annihilation of corruption (6.17), and the purpose of the vessel is to save its occupants from said destruction (6.18). But is our object merely ―a vehicle for conveyance on water,‖21 or is there a more exceptional purpose and goal to the Flood story which finds its crux in ? N.M. Sarna, for example, posits, ―Noah‘s ark is the matrix of a new creation.‖22 2.3 in Exodus The construction of in Exodus 2, while vastly smaller than Noah‘s vessel, still leads some scholars to call it an ark or ship;23 this preference is due to the already coined term in Genesis, especially by virtue of similar building materials, namely pitch24 and reeds.25 To be Nile specific, the small was said to have been made out of ―gōme‟, a water-plant (perhaps derived from a root denoting ‗to swallow‘ or ‗imbibe,‘ but it is possibly an Eg. loan- word); the Nile rush or papyrus, which was common in Lower Egypt…was used for writing material, mats, sails, cloth, baskets and light boats or canoes.‖26 Based on the petit dimensions of Moses‘ , some scholars are partial to the LXX witness and call the container a basket,27 albeit a basket which needed some modifications. Another terminological postulation for the Exodus is D. Rosenburg‘s infant purporting parlance: crib; the object which Moses‘ mother selected was a ―crib of papyrus‖ and
18 Morgenstern, Genesis, 76. 19 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 420. 20 Bailey, ABD 4:1131. 21 Hague, ―hbftIi,‖ NIDOTTE 4:270. 22 Sarna, Genesis, 50; also Niditch (Chaos to Cosmos, 22-23) postulates how the Deluge ―chaos has within it one small island of cosmogonic order, the ark‖—―cosmos floats on chaos.‖ 23 Gunkel (Genesis, 144) highlights the similarity: ―Even in the oldest ships discovered in Egypt, seams and joints were filled with asphalt (Tägl. Rundschau 10/6 [1902]).‖ Cf., McNeile, Exodus, 7; J.H. Hertz, ed., Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 210. 24 G. Henton Davies, Exodus, Introduction and Commentary (TBC; London: SCM Press LTD, 1967), 63. Cf., Hertz, Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 210. 25 See Edward Ullendorff, ―The Construction of Noah‘s Ark,‖ VT 4/1 (1954): 95-96; James Franklin Armstrong, ―A Critical Note on Genesis VI 16aα,‖ VT 10/3 (1960): 331. 26 McNeile, Exodus, 7. Hertz (Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 210) also notes, ―the paper-reed…leaves were used for making boats, maps, ropes and paper.‖ 27 E.g., Propp, Exodus 1-18, 149; Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17 (NICOT, 1; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990), 280; John I. Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 180. Cf. Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament (3rd ed.; Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), 49; Harry M. Orlinsky, Understanding the Bible through History and Archaeology (New York, N.Y.: KTAV Publishing House, 1972), 55; James Plastaras, Creation and Covenant (Milwaukee, Wisc.: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968), 101; John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller, eds., Israelite and Judean History (OTL; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1977), 155. 4
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
accordingly the special object the daughter of Pharaoh found was the same ―crib among the reeds.‖28 Further, there is much debate as to whether it was Moses‘ mother‘s objective for the baby to be discovered or not; in particular, the tension is whether the was purposed to be a conspicuous seafaring vessel29 or an inconspicuous, waterproof hiding shelter.30
Since hbt is said to be an Egyptian loanword meaning casket or coffin (see 2.1 above and ch.4),31 speculations abound as to how this might interface with the set in the Nile of Egypt. Is Moses‘ to be viewed as a casket? M. Buber states, A Semitist concludes from the Egyptian loan word that the mother really chose to make the ‗box‘ of papyrus, in which the child was exposed, in the shape of one of those shrines wherein pictures of the gods floated on the Nile during festivals, in order to be certain of rescue. If this is so, we may be permitted to consider it as symbolic; he who must immerse himself in the innermost parts of the alien culture in order to withdraw his people from thence is hidden as a child in the seat of the foreign gods.32 Indeed, the ―child is not thrown into the Nile to be killed, but is consigned to the Nile to be saved.‖33 2.4 Juxtaposed Paralleling observations between the vessels of Noah and Moses are present in biblical scholarship, though at a minimum. Propp, in extrapolating the relationship between the two texts, sees how Exodus ―1:22–2:10 recapitulates the Flood as well as Creation.‖34 U. Cassuto expounds this framework in the following eruditions: By this verbal parallelism Scripture apparently intends to draw attention to the thematic analogy. In both instances one worthy of being saved and destined to bring salvation to others is to be rescued from death by drowning. In the earlier section the
28 David Rosenberg, The Book of J (trans. Harold Bloom; New York, N.Y.: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990), 141. See also Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, 2.9.220: ―an ark of bulrushes, after the manner of a cradle.‖ 29 Martin Buber, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant (New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row Publishers, 1958), 35. 30 Jorge Pixley (―Liberation Criticism‖ in Methods for Exodus [MBI; ed. T.B. Dozeman; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010], 153) calls it ―an elaborate watertight ark.‖ Cf. Stuart, Exodus, 90; Davies, Exodus, 63. 31 HALOT, 1678; BDB, 1061. 32 Buber, Moses, 35; citing A.S. Yahuda, Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Part 1 (London: Humphrey Milford & Oxford University Press, 1933). 33 Rolf Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament (trans. David E. Orton; Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2005), 36. Cf., Ronald F. Youngblood (The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991], 89) remarks, ―[a]s the ark saved Noah and seven other from a watery grave, so the basket saved the baby Moses from a similar fate.‖ 34 Propp, Exodus 1-18, 147. Propp (Exodus 1-18, 160) also sees a connection in the Babylonian equivalents; the ―Sargon legend, too, refers to the original Babylonian Flood tradition, featuring a saving, pitch- besmeared reed vessel with a bābu ‗opening‘ (Cohen 1972: 43-44; Lewis 1980: 46).‖ Cf. John Skinner, Genesis (ICC, 1; New York, N.Y.: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1910), 160. 5
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
salvation of humanity is involved, here it is the salvation of the chosen people; in the former passage, Scripture tells of the deliverance of the macrocosm, in the latter it speaks of the deliverance of the microcosm.35 W.H. Schmidt differs, conversely, indicating ―there is no justification for understanding Gen. 6 as a type for Ex. 2 and interpreting ‗Moses as a second Noah or Moses‘ deliverance of his people as a new creation.‘ …[Instead,] Schmidt decides to leave open the question whether the two legends of the ‗saving box‘ have common tradition-historical roots, although tradition-historical independence is more likely.‖36 The foregoing has been a survey of some of the most relevant, though certainly not exhaustive, scholarship concerning , its possible linguistic origins, its construction and conceptualizations, its grand purpose and theological implications. 2.5 The Need for Further Scholarship of It becomes evident that scholars either fail to mention the lexeme doublet of in Gen 6- 9* and Ex 2*,37 or they merely acknowledge the dual presence but do not investigate any further.38 Instead, scholarly discussion surrounding Pentateuchal seeks to find
35 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1967), 18-19 (cf. Cassuto‘s A Commentary on the Book of Genesis; pt.1 – From Noah to Abraham: Genesis VI9-XI32. [trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1964] 59). Stuart (Exodus, 88) similarly describes that Noah and Moses ―both were deliverers/rescuers who were called by God to lead people and animals through and out of danger into a new location where those people and animals would become dominant in establishing a new stage of God‘s unfolding plan of redemption of the world.‖ Carol Meyers (Exodus [NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 43) observes, ―[b]oth basket and ark are vehicles for the saving a significant figure from a watery demise, thus signaling a new era.‖ Sarna (Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel [New York: Schocken Books, 1986], 28) similarly states, ―like Noah‘s ark, our [Exodus] tevah is the instrument of salvation in the perilous waters… being wholly dependent upon God‘s benevolent protection for its safety.‖ See also Hague, NIDOTTE 4:270; Bernard Gosse, ―Moïse entre l‘alliance des Patriarches et celle du Sinaï,‖ SJOT 11/1 (1997): 6; James S. Ackerman, ―The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story (Exodus 1-2)‖ in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (eds. K.R.R. Gros Louis, et al.; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1974), 91; F.V. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch‟s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel‟s Identity (JSOTSup, 361; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 60-61; Richard Coggins, The Book of Exodus (EC; Peterborough: Epworth, 2000), 8; Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 20; et al. 36 Quoted and synopsized by Zobel, TDOT 15:552. See Schmidt, Exodus I: 1,1–6,30 (KBAT II/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsverein, 1988), 69. So Cornelis Houtman, Exodus, vol.1: Chapters 1:1–7:13 (trans. Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra; HCOT; Kampen: Kok, 1993), 277. 37 E.g., Gunkel, Genesis; Von Rad, Genesis; Martin Noth, Exodus, A Commentary (OTL; trans. J.S. Bowden; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1962), Brevard S. Childs, The Book of Exodus, A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1974), E.A. Speiser, Genesis (AB, 1; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007), John Van Seters, The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). Of course, silence concerning the lexical doublet does not necessarily mean the phenomenon has escaped the above author‘s attention; perhaps it simply was not imperative for their respective scopes. 38 E.g., Durham, Exodus; Hamilton, Genesis; Derek Kidner, Genesis, An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC, 1; Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967), Sarna, Genesis; Skinner, Genesis; Wenhem, Genesis 1-15; Westermann, Genesis 1-11; McNeile, Exodus; Niditch, Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), 49; Andre Lacocque, ―L‘idee Directrice de Exode I a IV,‖ VT 15/3 (1965) : 6
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
interpretation and meaning in analogous legends/sagas of ancient Near Eastern materials; that is, scholarship corresponds Noah‘s vessel to that of other Flood sagas,39 and compares infant Moses‘ vessel to those in other Exposed Child legends (see chs.2 & 3 respectively).40 However, the two biblical s have hitherto not undergone significant paralleling analysis. In fact, B. Lewis has queried, ―is there a definite literary allusion in Exodus II to Noah‘s ark (and for that matter, a connection between the image of Sargon‘s vessel and the Akkadian ark)? The problem requires further study…‖41 The course for the furtherance of scholarship, then, and consequently our main research question is thus: Are the two texts in the Hebrew Bible intended to be paralleled based on the exclusive usage of said nomenclature, and common physical variables and narrative themes? If so, is there an implied association of which has meaning specialized for Noah and Moses (and affiliated parties)? The results of this problem statement may matter greatly, for it has the potentiality of illuminating a unique hue upon the concept of deliverance and salvation, sanctuary and sovereignty. It is naturally our aim to achieve this thesis, thus burgeoning studies and its theological implications specifically, as well as contributing to Pentateuchal studies generally. Should, however, our research and presentation thereof not meet the stated objective(s), the present study shall still be of benefit to biblical scholarship, for it will be, at the very least, a compilation of research, something which is a dearth in biblical scholarship.42
348-349; Mercedes García Bachmann, ―¿Qué hacían mientras tanto las mujeres hebreas (Exodo 1-2)?,‖ Cuaderno de Teología 18 (1999): 17-18. Also, it may be that the particular writing scope forbids authors to investigate the matter further. 39 E.g., ―The Epic of Gilgamesh‖ translated by E.A. Speiser (ANET, 72-99) & ―The Epic of Gilgamesh—Notes and Additions‖ translated by A.K. Grayson (ANET, 503-507); ―Atrahasis‖ translated by E.A. Speiser (ANET, 104-106) & ―Astrahasis—Additional Texts‖ translated by A.K. Grayson (ANET, 512-514); ―The Deluge‖ translated by S.N. Kramer (ANET, 42-44). Cf. Eugene Fisher, ―Gilgamesh and Genesis: The Flood Story in Context,‖ CBQ 32 (1970): 392-403; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, ―The Atrahasis Epic and it Significance for our Understanding of Genesis 1-9,‖ BA 40/4 (1977): 147-155; Ruth E. Simoons-Vermeer, ―The Mesopotamian Floodstories: A Comparison and Interpretation,‖ Numen 21/1 (1974): 17-34. 40 E.g., ―The Legend of Sargon‖ translated by E.A. Speiser (ANET, 119). Cf. Donald B. Redford, ―The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child (cf. Ex. ii 1-10),‖ Numen 14/3 (1967): 209-228; Childs, ―The Birth of Moses,‖ JBL 84/2 (1965): 109-122. 41 Brian Lewis (The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero who was Exposed at Birth [ASOR Diss. Series, 4; Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1980], 46 [276]). See also C. Cohen, ―Hebrew tbh,‖ 42: ―A literary connection between the receptacle mentioned in the Legend of Sargon and the boat of the Akkadian flood story has never been noted, but should such a connection exist, it might help explain why hbt was used in both the biblical flood story and the story of Moses‘ birth.‖ 42 The few exceptions are: C. Cohen, ―Hebrew tbh,‖ 37-51; Raphael Loewe, ―Ark, Archaisms and Misappropriations‖ in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOTSup, 333; eds., A. Papoport-Albert and G. Greenberg; Sheffield: Academic Press, 2001), 113-145; Marguerite Harl, ―Le Nom de ‗L‘arche‘ de Noe dans La Septante: Les choix lexicaux des traducteurs alexandrins, indices 7
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
3. The Problem 3.1 Presuppositions and Hypotheses Where we believe the research concerning has gone awry is in its exegetical analysis being limited to the two texts in which it is employed, Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* only. It is our presupposition that a third biblical text must be introduced into the discussion, one which speaks to the ramifications of in the second instance, namely Ex 15*, the Song of the Sea. Whereas we detect the full trajectory of ‘s purpose imbedded in Gen 6-9*, we surmise Exodus 2.1-10 contains only a partial trajectory of ‘s effect. In the case of Gen 6-9* the vector of proceedings encompasses amongst and passing through water thus resulting in the preservation of life; and, the Deluge events culminates in a covenant relationship with God. In Ex 2.1-10, however, the is only a fragment vector unless Ex 15* is annexed and examined in tandem. It is only with this augmented scope wherein the aggregated events of the Exodus parallel the stages of the text of Genesis—a community passes through waters that meant death for some and deliverance for others of whose experience culminates in covenant.43
Gen 6-7 / Ex 2 Gen 8 / Ex 15 Gen 9 / Ex 20ff in (death-)water Passing through (death-)water Covenant
Therefore, we hypothesize that in order to exhume ‘s purpose in the Hebrew Bible, the Song(s) of the Sea (Ex 15.1-21), which canonically placed poetically conveys the Reed Sea crossing, provides the climactic completion to the events, via an extended ellipsis, set forth in motion during Moses‘ infancy and eventually the Israelites come into a covenant with God— the deliverer of the Hebrew people from bondage is first rescued himself by means of a life preserving receptacle (), and then the family of Israel this time (as against the family of 44 Noah) is saved by the passing through of death-waters (Mwht). With Ex 15* serving as the third and final text of our scope, it together with Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* represents a triangular relationship. By the very nature of a triangle each point
d‘interpretations théologiques?‖ in ALECANDRIA: Hellénisme, judaïsme et christianisme à Alexandrie: Mélanges Claude Mondésert, S.J. (Paris: Cerf, 1987), 15-43. 43 See Rendtorff, ―‗Covenant‘ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus,‖ JBL 108/3 (1989): 385-393; cf. Irvin A. Busenitz, ―Introduction to the Biblical Covenants: The Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant,‖ TMSJ 10/2 (1999): 173-189; Georg Fischer, ―Exodus 1-15. Eine Erzӓhlung‖ in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation (BETL, 127; ed. M. Vervenne; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 149-178. 44 R. Zuurmond has precipitated our hypothesis of integrating Ex 15* into the discussion and elucidating, in brief, some of the same conceptual/theological implications (―Het bijbelse verhaal: verteller en vertaler,‖ „– wie het leest lette er op! –‟ een bundel bijbelvertaal-vragen, 41 [1970]: 2504-2511). 8
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
shares a side with the other two points, and the same is true of the interrelation of our three Pentateuchal texts: Gen 6.5–9.17, Ex 2.1-10, Ex 15.1-21. At this point the interconnectedness of the aforementioned triangular relationship will be delineated.
D Gen 6-9 A B Ex 2
E F
C Ex 15
Clearly, Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* are intrinsically bound because they are the only two passages in the Hebrew Bible which record hbt (see above). Ex 2* and 15* are not only part of the same book and has interwoven themes (latter events being the natural course and projection of earlier predicaments), these two texts also 45 share the key term Pws. Since the Reed Sea crossing (Ex 15*) is the counterpart context of Ex 2.1-10, the authorial perspective here is provocative; for, just as the Flood Narrative source is a P and non-P composite, so too the combination of Ex 1-2 and 15* is a non-P–P compilation (see chs.2, 3, 5). In addition to the interrelationship of Ex 2* and 15* because of the term Pws, life emergence out of the midst of r)y is recorded of both Moses through the 46 Nile (Ex 2.3, 5) and the Israelites through the Reed Sea (Isa 19.5-8; cf. Pwsin v.6). There is also a tenable correlation between Gen 6-9* and Ex 15* concerning the setting in which the is couched: Mwht, the ―cosmic dimensions of the primeval waters.‖47 This is the third side of the triangular relationship of the three aforesaid texts. Gen
6-9* has two references to Mwht (7.11, 8.3 [P]; cf. Gen 1.2 [P]); Ex 15* records Mwht in double too (vv.5, 8 [P]).48 Thus, just like the original primeval ocean and the Deluge waters, the Reed Sea has as its source Mwht. ―In Egypt everything arises from Nun, the primal ocean, which surrounds the ordered world. From it the sun comes forth afresh each morning. It is associated with the notion of fertility, for the Nile is fed by its waters.‖49 The primeval ocean,
45 3, 5 19 18 4, 22 31 Ex 2 ; 10 ; 13 ; 15 ; 23 . Exodus is the initial book of the Pentateuch which records Pws. 46 For Exodus/Reed Sea crossing echoes: Isaiah 43.16-17; 51.9-10, Psalms 74.13-14; 89.10-14. 47 Waschke, ―MwOht;%‖ TDOT 15:578. Cf. N.H. Snaith, ―PwOs-My: The Sea of Reeds: The Red Sea,‖ VT 15/3 (1965): 397. 48 These are four (4) of the six (6) references to Mwhtin Genesis and Exodus (Gen 49.25 [non-P]), and four (4) of the eight (8) occurrences in the Pentateuch (Deut 8.7; 33.13). 49 Waschke, TDOT 15:575. 9
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
consequently, has mythological dimensions which convey chaos, death, and even the chthonic realm. and Mwht are polarities in terms and theological implications. Hence, that the Hebrew slaves survived Mwhtilluminates the importance of the which formerly delivered their human delivering agent, Moses; for, just as Noah‘s experience with the life preserving receptacle rendered the subterranean death-waters impotent, so too when Moses experienced the life preserving receptacle he was not crushed by the chthonic watery forces. There are mythological elements in the Genesis Flood account and the Song of the Sea which are both corollary to ancient Near Eastern mythologies; these include, the Akkadian/Babylonian myths regarding Marduk and Tiamat,50 and the Ugaritic/Canaanite myths of Baal, Yamm, and Mot.51 Further, there are life preservation reverberations in Deutero-Isaiah in relation to mythological elements generally (Isa 51.9-11; 54.9-10) and in the Psalter Mwhtterminology specifically (e.g., Ps 29.10; 77.16-20; 104.3-6). Therefore, Gen 6-9, Ex 2, and Ex 15 form a triangular relationship of intertextuality which will aid greatly in achieving a thorough and holistic exegetical analysis in order to demonstrate the significance of , what its life-perseveration conceptualizations portent for Yahwists of antiquity and contemporary alike. Yet, there is even supplementary interconnectedness between the sides to opposite angles of this triangle of Pentateuchal texts Gen 6-9*, Ex 2*, Ex 15*. The commonality between Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* (Diagram: D) finds intertextuality, albeit somewhat tenuous, to Ex 15* (Diagram: C) concerning a particular vessel. We have mentioned the LXX terminology of in Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* are different in each context (see §1). The Septuagint has kibwto/j not only for Noah‘s ―ark,‖ but the ―ark‖ of the covenant and any other box or chest-like structure throughout the canon. In addition to all these usages there is one unique occurrence of interest. In Gen 50.26 Joseph is buried in an Nwr); in light of copious documents concerning Egyptian burial rituals of
50 See Dahood, ―Eblaite,‖ 1-24; Fisher, ―Gilgamesh and Genesis,‖ 392-403; Frymer-Kensky, ―Atrahasis Epic,‖ 147-155; J.B. Geyer, ―Twisting Tiamat‘s Tail: A Mythological Interpretation of Isaiah XIII 5 and 8,‖ VT 37/2 (1987): 164-179; Simoons-Vermeer, ―Mesopotamian Floodstories,‖ 17-34; Thorkild Jacobsen, ―The Eridu Genesis,‖ JBL 100/4 (1981): 513-529; Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (trans. J.A. Baker; OTL; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1967), 105. 51 See ―Poems about Baal and Anath‖ translated by H.L. Ginsberg (ANET, 129-142); F.M. Cross, ―Prose and Poetry in the Mythic and Epic Texts from Ugarit,‖ HTR 67/1 (1974): 1-15; Frank E. Eakin, Jr., ―The Reed Sea and Baalism,‖ JBL 86 (1967): 378-84; John A. Emerton, ―Leviathan and LTN: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon,‖ VT 32/3 (1982): 327-331; Loren R. Fisher, ―Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament,‖ VT 15/3 (1965): 313-324; Jakob H. Grønbæk, ―Baal‘s Battle with Yam–A Canaanite Creation Fight,‖ JSOT 33 (1985): 27-44; Vivian and Issac Rosensohn Jacobs, ―The Myth of Môt and ‘Al‘eyan Ba‗al,‖ HTR 38/2 (1945): 77-109; Mary K. Wakeman, ―The Biblical Earth Monster in the Cosmogonic Combat Myth,‖ JBL 88/3 (1969): 313-320. 10
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
entombing the dead, this particular Nwr) is effectively a coffin—indeed, the Greek (LXX) term draws out this denotation: soro/j, ―coffin, bier.‖52 It is this very same Joseph‘s bones‘ container that made their exodus from Egypt along with every other Israelite; in fact, that Joseph‘s bones were planned and intended to be transported from Egypt to the tomb of his forefathers in Canaan, i.e. the Promised Land, is referenced a few times in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 50.24-25; Ex 13.19; Josh 24.32).53 Therefore, this soro/j/coffin—the Greek version of
?—is found within a body of water (Sea of Reeds) which is characterized both as Mwht
(Diagram: E) and Pws (Diagram: F) and through which it ultimately passes.
The second side to an opposite angle interconnectedness is how the lexeme Mwht, constituent of both Gen 6-9* and Ex 15* (Diagram: E), interfaces with Ex 2* (Diagram: B) in that Mwht connotes ―cosmic dimensions of the primeval waters‖ which burst forth from subterranean reservoirs.54 It is this same source which supplies the annual inundation of the 55 Nile. Though Mwht is not penned in Ex 2.1-10 it is our presumption that this subterranean source of primeval water should be comprised in the fabric of the backdrop for the Moses Infancy milieu.56 The third side which corresponds to the third opposite angle of our triangular relationship entail the myriad of mythologies associated with the Pws Myof Ex 2* and 15* and the Flood Account, Gen 6-9* (Diagram: F–A). Here some ―traditional mythical language is used to express the belief that the emergence of Israel as a people during the exodus was due to a creative act by Yahweh equal to that of the original creation of the cosmos itself.‖57 This last statement leads us to submit another presupposition concerning the Flood account‘s relationship to the beginning of P‘s Creation account, specifically Gen 1.2. We concur that, as C. Westermann has said, ―[c]reation and flood belong together and correspond to one another. The flood narrative implies that the creation is threatened by catastrophes, and that a
52 DBAG, 934. LS, 1621: ―vessel for holding human remains, cinerary urn.‖ Cf. also J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992), 561; T. Muraoka, A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), 628. Soro/j also occurs in 1 Chron 7.16; Job 21.32; Lk 7.14. 53 See D.M. Carr, ―The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections,‖ HeBAI 1/1 (2012): 7-36. 54 Waschke, TDOT, 15:578. See also Skinner, Genesis, 164. 55 Herodotus (II.19) records, ―the Nile comes down with a rising flood for a hundred days from the summer solstice‖ and subsequently ―sinks again with a diminishing stream, so that the river is low for the whole winter till the summer solstice again‖ (trans. A.D. Godley, Herodotus: Books I-II [LCL, 117; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996], 297). 56 See again Waschke, TDOT 15:575. 57 Bernard F. Batto, ―The Reed Sea: Requiescat In Pace,‖ JBL 102/1 (1983): 35. Cf. ―Hymn to the Nile‖ translated by John A. Wilson (ANET, 372-373) where the Nile is continually ―[e]ntering into the underworld and coming forth above‖ (373). 11
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
catastrophe can also be based on God‘s will.‖58 Similarly stated, ―the Deluge is directly connected with Creation. It is, in fact, the exact reversal of it.‖59 These hypotheses and presumptions, albeit terse here, are central to the fulfilment of the overall thesis: Are the two texts (Gen 6-9* and Ex 2*) parallel, and if so then what portents of deliverance and salvation, sanctuary and sovereignty are there for Yahwists? 3.2 Methodology and Approach The particular course in which this present study will conduct its investigation is to exegetically analyze the three Pentateuchal texts stated (Gen 6-9*, Ex 2*, Ex 15*), and to do so in a twofold manner. Each text will undergo critical analysis first by means of synchronic exegesis, and its results will be a dialogue partner for the second, diachronic analytical pass over a particular biblical text.60 We adopt the working definitions of synchrony and diachrony that J. Hoftijzer has provided. Synchrony is ―the approach which aims at the definition and description of the structure of a text in the final form in which it is handed down to us.‖61 Diachrony is ―the approach which aims at the definition and description of the compositional/redactional history of this text.‖62 In short, ―the diachronic analysis…is interested in the genesis of the text, and the synchronic analysis…is interested in the text as a final product, as a completed composition.‖63 Biblical scholars are in general agreement that the synchronic–diachronic bifurcated methodology works interdependently one with another,64 not in conflict or exclusion;65
58 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 88. Cf. Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988). 59 Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 55. 60 Eben Scheffler says, ―synchronic reading as such does not make a diachronic or historical reading redundant, but actually calls for it‖ (―Criticism of Government: Deuteronomy 17:14-20 Between (and Beyond) Synchrony and Diachrony‖ in South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony [LHBOTS 463; eds. J. le Roux and E. Otto; London: T&T Clark, 2007] 130); cf. Pieter M. Venter ―Synchrony and Diachrony in Apocalyptic Studies‖ in South African Perspectives (eds. J. le Roux and E. Otto), 189. 61 J. Hoftijzer, ―Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic Remarks to the Problem‖ in Synchronic or Diachronic? A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis (OTS, 34; ed. J.C. de Moor; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 98 n.2. 62 Hoftijzer, ―Holistic or Compositional Approach?, 98 n.2. 63 E. Talstra, Solomon‟s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8, 14-61 (CBET, 3; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharaoh Publishing House, 1993), 9. 64 Joy Philip Kakkanattu, God‟s Enduring Love in the Book of Hosea: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Hosea 11,1-11 (FAT 2; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 8; Hans Ulrich Steymans, ―The Blessings in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33: Awareness of Intertextuality‖ in South African Perspectives (eds. J. le Roux and E. Otto), 89; Alphonso Groenewald, ―Changing Paradigms: Old Testament Scholarship Between Synchrony and Diachrony‖ in South African Perspectives (eds. J. le Roux and E. Otto), 123; Scheffler ―Criticism of Government,‖ 124-125; Talstra, Solomon‟s Prayer, 264-266; Jean-Louis Ska, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions (FAT, 66; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 228. 65 Louis C. Jonker images, ―synchrony and diachrony are the bifocal lenses through which we read biblical texts‖, ―a multidimensional view of the reading process, within which synchronic and diachronic 12
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
further, it is the general consensus that in the rubric of this exegetical methodology synchrony ought to be the prior phase while diachrony the latter.66 Given that synchronic and diachronic exegetical methods are integrative, to bifurcate these methodologies is unnatural; even still, for purpose thorough and systematic treatment synchrony and diachrony stages the methodological ideal shall be ceded. Nevertheless, reciprocal (parenthetical) cross references between germane synchronic to diachronic sections and brief annotations (in footnotes) are furnished in order to convey the overlapping and interconnected nature of the total exegetical process. Regarding synchronic exegesis specifically, ―the synchronic analysis implies a description of the journey which the reader makes through the text, regardless of the genesis of the text itself.‖67 The constituent parts throughout our journey of synchronic analysis are: linguistic and literary analyses,68 and narrative criticism.69 With regards to the diachronic methodology in particular, it should be noted, ―one is again dealing with the relationship between author and reader, but now the question is how this relationship functions in the various stages of development which the text has undergone.‖70 The various angles, or stages, of exegesis subsumed in the diachronic methodology will be through the following historical-
perspectives‖ are ―dimensions interacting with one another‖ (―Reading the Pentateuch With Both Eyes Open: On Reading Biblical Texts Multidimensionally‖ in South African Perspectives [eds. J. le Roux and E. Otto], 97- 98). Cf. Serge Frolov, The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1-8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives (BZAW, 342; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004), 29; M. Dijkstra, ―The Geography of the Story of Balaam: Synchronic Reading as a Help to Date a Biblical Text‖ in Synchronic or Diachronic? (ed. J.C. de Moor), 72. 66 Jurie le Roux, ―Setting the Scene: The Battle of the Signs‖ in South African Perspectives (eds. J. le Roux and E. Otto), 10; Venter, ―Synchrony and Diachrony,‖ 185; D.J.A. Clines, ―Beyond Synchronic/ Diachronic‖ in Synchronic or Diachronic? (ed. J.C. de Moor), 61-62; Daniel Hoojon Ryou, Zephaniah‟s Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic & Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 4. 67 Talstra, Solomon‟s Prayer, 83 (169). 68 Jerome T. Walsh, Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001); Jean Calloud, Structural Analysis of Narrative (trans. Daniel Patte; SBL Semeia Supplements, 4; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1976); idem, trans. John C. Kerby, ―A Few Comments on Structural Semiotics: A Brief Review of a Method and Some Explanation of Procedures,‖ Semeia 15 (1979): 51-83; Robert C. Culley, Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Narrative (SBL Semeia Supplements, 3. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1976); Daniel Patte and Aline Patte, Structural Exegesis: From Theory to Practice. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1978). 69 Walsh, Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009); Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (trans. Yael Lotan; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2001); D.F. Tolmie, Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide (London: International Scholars Press, 1999); Jean-Louis Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives; Subsidia Biblica 13 (Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1990); Shimon Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup, 70; trans. Dorothea Shefer-Vanson with S. Bar-Efrat; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989); Meir Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985); Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (BiLiSe 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983); Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? (GBS; ed. D.O. Via Jr.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1990). 70 Talstra, Solomon‟s Prayer, 264. 13
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
critical71 means: Literarkritik,72 Formen/Gattungskritik,73 and Komposition/ Redaktionskritik.74 These explicated delineations thus form the synchrony–diachrony methodology conducted on our three Pentateuchal texts. Textkritik75 will stand outside of the synchrony and diachrony exegetical sections of a given chapter. This is not done because textual criticism is unlike either rubric of methodology, it is actually fundamental to each. Instead, textual criticism will serve as a preface to both the synchronic and diachronic stages; for it is essential to establish the base text from which any exegetical methodology is employed. Once the two contexts (Gen 6-9*; Ex 2*) wherein has been penned have undergone the aforementioned methodological analysis (chs.2 & 3), the next move will be to investigate the most likely donor language of hbt (ch.4). In pinning down the origin of hbt we shall also determine the semantic connotations enshrouded in the original language, and, in turn, what connotations have been retained from the donor language and/or what
71 For overview see Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001); W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971); Georg Fohrer, et. al., Exegese des Alten Testaments: Fünfte Auflage (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1989); Louis C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety: Perspectives on Multidimensional Exegesis (CBET, 19; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996); Odil Hannes Steck, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology (2nd ed.; trans. James D. Nogalski; SBLRBS, 39; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998). 72 E.g., Norman Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1971); P. Guillaume, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18 (LBHOT, 391; London: T&T Clark, 2009); Theodore Hiebert, The Yahwist‟s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2008); David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996). The German terms of diachronic lenses are used in order to prevent confusion, namely the blurring of the term ―Literary Criciticm‖ which traditionally was diachronic in conception however now has synchronic portents; consequently ―Source Criticism‖ is the favoured English term for the diachronic interpretive angle. Thus, the unambiguous term Literarkritik, for example, is so employed. 73 Gene M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (GBS; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1971); John H. Hayes, ed., Old Testament Form Criticism (San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University Press, 1974); Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds., The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003); Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context (JSOTSup, 274; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998); idem, The Changing Shape of Form Criticism: A Relational Approach (HBM, 18; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2010); Klaus Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (trans. S.M. Cupitt; New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1969); Rolf Knierim, ―Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,‖ Int 27/4 (1973): 435-468. 74 Gary A. Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1986); Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism? (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002); Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT, 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999); idem, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (trans. James Nogalski; Siphrut, 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010); Reinhard G. Kratz, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenkoech & Ruprecht, 2000); idem, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (trans. John Bowden; New York: T&T Clark, 2005). 75 Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (rev. ed.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001); Ernst Würthwein, The Text of the Old Testament (2nd ed.; trans. Erroll F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995); P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001); Ellis R. Brotzman, Old Testament Textual Criticism, A Practical Introduction (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House Co., 1994). 14
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
denotations the Biblical writers imbued it with when penning it for their own purposes. Subsequently we can then approach our third and final text, Ex 15* (ch.5); with the last piece of the trajectory receiving exegetical analysis the pursuit of cognizing the technical and pregnant meaning of shall come to light. The final move of the thesis is designated for Theologische Kritik76 of our three Pentateuchal texts (ch.6). It will be at this stage where the diachronic exegesis coalesces, yielding theological results.
76 Rendtorff, Canonical Hebrew Bible; John H. Hayes and Frederick Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1985); Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1: The Theology of Israel‟s Historical Traditions (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001); Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology (Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1982);Walter Brueggemann, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1997); Walther Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978); R.W.L. Moberly, The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology [Series]; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Donald E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville, Ky., Westminster John Knox Press, 1994); James Plastaras, The God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives (Milwaukee, Wisc.: Bruce Publishing Company, 1966). 15
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER 2
NOAH’S TEBĀH (GENESIS 6-9*)
Gen 6-9*, the first of our three Pentateuchal texts and the first (canonically) to possess the focal lexeme , is the initial stage of the exegetical investigation to determine a parallel with its counterpart text, Ex 2*. In this chapter we focus on the body of text which most attests the term in question; for of the twenty-eight occurrences of all but two of them feature in Gen 6-9*. Through both synchronic and diachronic exegesis of the Flood Narrative, will be viewed in its broader context and through a variety of angles.
0. Textkritik At the start it is integral to begin with the establishment of the base text for both the synchronic and diachronic exegesis. Accordingly Textkritik [1] seeks to reconstruct, insofar as possible, the original text of the account. Also, we shall [2] elucidate para-textual scribal/Masoretic markers and annotations, as preserved in BHS. Lastly, [3] a translation of the Genesis Flood is presented as per the established text through textual criticism. 0.1 Witnesses from Textual Families Through the evaluation of where textual families of various Semitic and non-Semitic languages diverge, what may materialize is the reconstruction of the most likely original text; also, knowledge of the various types of errors problematically caused by scribes in the transmission of biblical texts couples in ascertaining the closest text to the autograph. (The following enumerations indicate BHS chs. and vv.; and the superscripted letters represent the number of text critical issues in any given verse [e.g., a=1, b=2, etc.]). 6.10 Some Samaritan mss have the wāw-conjunctive fussed to the second direct object
marker (t)w) instead of only the third as does MT; this renders the sequence as
t)w…t)w…t). However, there are no less than twelve verses (so Mp) in MT which
possess the threefold listing patters as t)w…t)…t). With such variability and concerning such a trivial matter, the text may remain as is. 6.13 LXX places kai/ before the object thn\ gh=n, yielding ―I will ruin them and the earth.‖
MT has the object marker before Ct)h rendering ―I will ruin them, the earth.‖ Hence
16
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
t)iImIi is proposed to be read in light of the awkward syntax (so Samaritan Targum) to be smoothed out to read ―I will ruin them from the earth.‖ This is a cogent
reconstruction for the two mêms ending and beginning the words in question (Mtyx#m
t)m) likely morphed into one phonetic sound in oral scribal transmission (Mtyx#m
t)). Assuming faulty hearing error, we accept the emendation. a 6.14 Philo has inserted Mynq making the occurrence double in order to render the concomitant accusative ―many nests/cells.‖ This is a helpful interpretation but the text need not be emended, for plurality in assumed is the singular occurrence and lectio brevior is the better reading. 6.14b+ O. Eißfeldt, BHS editor of Genesis, commends the transposition of the datum 6.16c regarding three decks in 6.16b to the end of v.14a; the result would be God mandating the construction of from gopher wood, consisting of cells, and to make three levels within , and then commence (in v.14b) to delineate the coating of the vessel with pitch. (See corollary judgment below.) 6.15+ Likewise, Eißfeldt wants to transpose the information that the vertical parts of the 6.16a should stop a cubit short of the roof (v.16a) to the end of v.15 where the dimensions of height, width, and length of the craft are given. Concerning both transpositional suggestions, the BHS editor is inclined to rearrange the order of the construction command(s) in a more logical order (for Westerners?): where the cubit in 6.16a is linked to other cubit references in 6.15b, and where the three decks in 6.16b is linked with other larger structural features in 6.14a. Such large reworking is unnecessary; the text is intelligible (for Easterners?) in its present order. b 6.16 hn@flekat@; is the inflection according to the Leningrad Codex (an orthographical hapax legomenon [so Mp]), although multiple mss of Hebraici secundum Kennicott witness
a daghesh forte in the lāmedh (hn@fle@kat@;). The latter is proper orthography and likely the original intent of the Masoretes. a 6.17 MyIma lw@b@m@aha-t)e is absent from the Targums. This is likely haplography on behalf of the Targums; without the above phrase the Targum reads ―I am bringing…upon the earth
destruction.‖ When the phrase is omitted the l prefix (of tx#$l) is a direct object 1 marker, otherwise the presence of Mym lwbmh-t) would render the same particle a preposition. The MT is witness is preferred.
1 Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §269. 17
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
b 2 6.17 MyIma is probably a gloss to explain/clarify lwbmh, posits Eißfeldt. E. Tov, alternatively, believes ―the assumption of a gloss is…untenable‖ since the two terms standing in juxtaposition function appositionally;3 one or the other lexeme cannot therefore be jettisoned. Both terms belong to the text and are accurately rendered in MT. c 4 6.17 SP has tyx#Ohl instead of MT‘s tx#Ol. MT‘s current form is otherwise testified in the Flood Narrative whereas the SP‘s form does not;5 so, revision is not needed. a 6.19 SP records hyxh whereas MT has yxh. It may be that hyxh is original, yet the hê aspiration sound dropped out in oral to written transmission (or even written to
written transmission); thus the final h may be reconstructed. 6.19b The SP and Septuagint have wāw affixed to the second mêm preposition of the verse,
that is, to the second of three prepositional phrases, lkm. The emendation is accepted with the clarification that this is a wāw-explicativum (i.e.): ―from all living things, that is, two of all flesh, from everything entering in to the ‖ (JJS). c 6.19 Whereas MT records r#b without the definite article, the SP attests it. There is one 6 instance (7.15) out of fourteen in the Flood Narrative where r#b otherwise takes the
article; moreover these occurrences are all prefixed with a meqqēp (-) to the
particle/preposition lk(m/b), save 9.4: r#b-K). Consequently, no alteration is necessary. 6.19d+ LXX (and Syriac [Peshitta] following suit) add du/o in the numerical description b 6.20 in both 6.19a and 6.20b; inserting a second MyIna#$; would render via concomitant ―two of each.‖ In accordance with the lectio brevior principle the word is not adopted; the text is intelligible without the geminate presence (cf. note on 7.2). e 6.19 SP attests hyhw, as opposed to MT‘s wyhy, and is connected with (the start of) v.20.
However, wyhy modifying hbqnw rkz makes perfect sense. Thus SP is erroneous.
2 So K.P. McCarter, Jr., Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001), 32-33. 3 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (rev. ed.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001), 280 n.69 (281 n.71); so Hendel, Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 52. Cf. Snaith (Hebrew Text of Genesis I-VIII, 48) who vacillates, ―Mym is either a gloss on the unusual word [lwbm] (and in vii. 6 also), or (less likely) in apposition, further defining it.‖ 4 MT occurrences of tyx#$hl: 1 Sam 26.15; 2 Kgs 8.19; 2 Chron 12.12; 21.7; 26.16; 36.19; Isa 51.13; Lam 2.8. MT occurrences of tx#$l: Gen 6.17; 9.11, 15; Josh 22.33; 1 Sam 23.10; 2 Sam 1.14; 14.11; Job 17.14; 33.22; Isa 51.14; Ezek 28.8; 30.11; 43.3; Hos 11.9. 5 See Tov, Textual Criticism, 93. 6 Gen 6.12, 13, 17, 19; 7.15, 16, 21; 8.17; 9.4, 11, 15, 16, 17 18
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
6.20a Perhaps MT is to be read with some mss from among the SP, Syriac, a few Targums,
and the Vulgate where lkmw features at the end of a series list. As it stands the MT
particle/prepositions are …lkm…-Nmw…-m. It is common practice to transcribe the wāw-conjunctive onto the second and/or third components within a series, hence scribal variation amongst the traditions abound and there is no consistency. No modification is advised for such an inconsequential discrepancy.
7.1 Two mss in SP and the Syriac Peshitta have Myhi$l)e: in the place of hwFhy:; and the Greek
witness adds o9 qeo/j onto ku/rioj. The construction Myhl) hwhy, however, is a phenomenon present in Gen 2-3 within the Pentateuch.7 To emendate in this isolated instance would not be prudent. a 7.2 In this verse there are two instances where wt#)w #y) are called into question, for the
SP has the alternate forms hbfqIin:w@ rkfzF. The most probable intention for these latter two
terms is to dehumanize the animals by lexical contradistinction; further, #y) and h#)
in the Flood Narrative refer entirely otherwise to humans (6.9; 9.5), while hbqnw rkz is reserved for male and female gendered animals (6.19; 7.3, 9, 16).8 Therefore, even if SP is a harmonization9 it rightly expresses the intentions of the text, and MT should be emended. b 7.2 Eißfeldt suggests perhaps MyIna#;O should be inserted to fall in line with SP, LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate witnesses (cf. note 6.19d + 6.20b). This addition is superfluous especially
considering it precedes the specification hbqnw rkz (wt#)w #y))—this is more clarification than 6.19, 20 possess (cf. Gen 7.9, 15; 1 Chron 26.17).
7.3 Eißfeldt advocates the insertion of rwOh+@fha, as per the SP and LXX, as a descriptive for
fowl of the heavens. rwOh+@fha is employed twice in 7.2 and 8 (in toto) in relation to
hmhbh; and in 7.8 PwO( is not modified either. Undoubtedly, given the immediate
context, ―clean(ness)‖ is assumed. It is not incorrect to have rwOh+@fha in this verse, albeit whether this was the original is not known.
7.6 MyIma is absent in the Septuagint, which is palpable because lwbm was a known term at the time of the translation and did not need the appositional term or construct chain
MyIma ―of waters‖ (cf. 6.17); actually, these two Hebrew words were amalgamated into
7 Nineteen (19) occurrences in Gen 2-3; Ex 9.30 is textually problematic. 8 The only other time this phrase occurs in the Hebrew Bible is Gen 1.27 (P); 5.2 (nP). 9 Tov (Textual Criticism, 87) sees this as a case of the SP performing ―small harmonizing changes on the basis of the immediate context or a nearby verse.‖ 19
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
kataklusmo\j. Thus, MyIma should not be omitted here; MyIma is fundamental in 6.17 and 7.6.10
7.8 It is proposed that lkow: is to be read lk@omiw@ along with the SP, LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate. The list of clean and unclean animals (in v.8) is linked together with the
preposition -Nmi; should the emendation be accepted it would extend and complete the
listing uniformly: …lkmw…-Nmw…-Nmw …-Nm. The mêm in question most likely fell out via haplography and should hence be restored.
7.9 Whereas the MT has Myhi$l)e: commanding Noah to bring pairs of clean and unclean animals into the vessel, one ms of the SP and a few mss of the Vulgate instead read
hwhy as the Divine appellation. Whereas xn-t) Myhl) hwc r#)k (7.9) is similar in
phraseology to Myhl) wt) hwc r#)k (7.16), previously in the context there were two command–fulfillment patterns, one per each name of the Deity: Elohim said to Noah– Noah obeyed Elohim (6.13, 22), YHWH said to Noah–Noah obeyed YHWH (7.1, 5). The phrase to which the word/name in question belongs (and that of 7.16aβ), however, is not prefaced with explicit commands couched in speech formulae.11 Nevertheless, there can still be linguistic analysis which would help resolve this textual quandary. The phraseology amongst the report/obedience formulae in 6.22 and 7.16 are harmonious to a large extent:
.h#( Nk Myhl) wt) hwc r#) lkk 6.22b
Myhl) wt) hwc r#)k 7.16aβ
Actually, the three word verbatim phrase only occurs elsewhere in Gen 21.4 (so Mp).
Also, the construct Myhl) hwc of 7.9 is a hapax legomenon, whereas hwhy hwc occurs
ubiquitously. The phrase xn-t) Myhl) hwc r#)k (7.9b), furthermore, is in close(r) literary proximity to 7.5 which is directly linked to 7.1—both of which attest the Tetragrammaton. Therefore, the emendation is accepted and applied.12
7.11 It is suggested to read #O#IiO as #O#O@ha with the SP. This harmonization is not needed (see 7.11and 8.13 where there is not a definite article).
10 Hendel (Text of Genesis 1-11, 52) sees this as a case of ―secondary revision of G.‖ 11 See Tov, ―The Nature and Background of Harmonizations in Biblical Manuscripts,‖ JSOT 31 (1985): 7, 12. 12 Incidentally, this emendation has great significance for source criticism. See 2.1 and 2.3. 20
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
7.13 A smattering of traditions (LXX, Syriac Urmiensis edition, and Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan) take a singular suffix, wOt@)i, as opposed to the plural suffix in MT, Mtf@)i. It is ambiguous as to whether Noah and his three sons are the subject of the previous sentence (7.13a), in which case the plural suffix would appropriately refer to their wives, or whether Noah alone is the subject, in which instance he is at least the antecedent of the clause (7.13b) concerning the preceding sentence (cf. 7.7). Verses
13 and 7 are indeed similar, the latter attesting wOt@)i. Nevertheless, lectio difficilior is to be preferred as the original.
7.14 MT‘s phrase PnFkF@-lk@f rwOp@ci lk@o is altogether wanting in the Septuagint, so Eißfeldt recommends deleting it.13 (This entire phrase is penned in Ezek 17.23.) Noteworthy
also is the absence of √Nym from the above phrase as it is present with every other
categorical animal listing, though perhaps PnFkF@-lk@f conveys as much. This is problematic yet should be unaltered.
7.17 LXX adds kai/ tessara/konta nu/ktaj (cf. 7.12) here; should hlfy:la My(ib@fr:)aw: be inserted (Eißfeldt)? No; forty nights are implied, since the first occurrence did explicate the nightly counterpart. The lectio brevior is the better.
7.20 Greek (and thus Syriac) adds ta\ u9yhla/ (―the height‖); consequently, perhaps Myhibog@:ha should be inserted. The word in question occurs in construct in the previous verse
(Myhbgh Myrhh-lk; 7.19); further the verbs both cases take, w@s@kuy:wA, are unique to
themselves in conjugation (Mp). As it is, Myhbgh Myrhh is a one-time occurring phrase
(Mp). The lack of Myhibog@:ha could be an instance of parablepsis on the part of the scribe, and so will be emended.
7.22 xaw@r, from the phrase Myyx xwr-tm#n, is absent from LXX and Vulgate. Indeed, xaw@r is redundant in the phrase,14 and its absence would match the phrase in Gen 2.7 where
Myyx tm#n is the anima of existence. Nevertheless, the presence of xaw@r conforms more
to the Flood Narrative usages (e.g., Myyx xwr in 6.17 and 7.15; xwr in 8.1 [1.2; 6.3]). There is a scribal harmonization present here, yet the original is difficult to ascertain; consequently, the three word phrase should remain under the terms of lectio difficilior.
13 Hendel (Text of Genesis 1-11, 53), says, ―[p]resumably, this specification has been added to exclude other flying things, such as insects.‖ 14 ―Most commentators have recognized that the phrase Myyx xwr-tm#n in 7:22 is a conflation of two synonymous phrases, Myyx tm#n and Myyx xwr, meaning ‗breath of life‘ (Hendel, Text of Genesis 1-11, 53-54). 21
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
a 7.23 Regarding the initial verb (xmayI@wA), it is conjectured that the vowel pointing below the mêm should be qāmeṣ verses a pataḥ thus transforming the verb into the Niphil stem. This alteration would then match the conjugation of the same verb later in the verse
(w@xmf@y@IwA). The emendation is taken based on an error in transcription based on phonetic assonance. 7.23b Whereas the Leningrad Codex does not possess a daghesh forte in the preformative
yôd of r)e#fO@yIwA, multiple mss in the Hebraici secundum Kennicott do. The latter is proper orthography and likely the original (intent). 15 8.2 The SP attests lkyw rather than )lkyw of the MT. The quiescent ʾālep has given rise to both renderings. Emendation is not compulsory since the meaning is the same.
8.3 Here the MT reads My#mx hcqm while the SP My#mx Cqm; thus the suggestion for
textual emendation is to read MT as My#mxh Cqm. The recommended emendation appeals to two errors, both wrong word division and misspelling by means of
assonance—both errors of oral transmission. However, My#mx does not occur with a
definite article elsewhere in the Flood Narrative (6.15; 7.24 [9.28, 29]). Cq (masc.)
agrees in gender with r#b-lk (6.13) and Mwy (8.6); and hcq (fem.) agrees in gender
with h)m (not Mwy). Therefore, the emendation is not accepted. 8.7 The Greek witness adds tou= i0dei=n ei0 keko/paken to\ u3dwr to clarify the raven‘s purpose (cf. v.8). However, this is an incorrect interpolation (see 1.2.3.5.1) and is therefore rejected.
8.8 Eißfeldt wants the phrase MymiyF t(ab;#$ xanO lxIiyAy:wA to be placed before xl@a#$ay:wA in MT. The desire to send the dove seven days after the raven, as in the firmly established (via repetition) pattern in the ensuing verses, is again an eisegetical interpolation presuming the raven played the same function as the dove. There is no dilemma in the raven and the dove being sent out essentially one after the other. 8.10+ In both these verses the same emendation is recommended: that the probable
8.12 reading of the initial verbs are spelt lxIiyAy:wA. As it stands, v.10 starts with lxIey@FwA, and v.12
with lxeyF@yI@wA. A second yôd should be added to the verb at the commencement of v.10,
for lxy, ―wait,‖ (inflected lxyyw) is more contextually appropriate than lyx, ―writhe,‖
(lxyw). As for the vowel pointing, that is a secondary issue. Hence emendation is enacted.
15 Mp indicates the only other occurrence of this exact orthography is in Ex 36.6 where Moses ―restrained‖ the people from making any more contributions for the sanctuary. 22
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
8.13 The LXX adds e0n th|= zwh=| tou= Nwe in order to reflect the wording in 7.11; however, this insertion is superfluous and is already implied since the contents of 7.11 set the dating rubric to correspond with Noah‘s age. Emendation is rejected.
8.17 SP, LXX, and Syriac have lkfw: rather than MT‘s lkf@. The purpose of the proposed conjunctive wāw is to connect the animal series more closely to, and as an extension of, the human series. Though that reads better, the emendation may not actually reflect the original text (see below). 8.19a Similar to the issue above, the call is to read with two mss of the SP, LXX, Syriac,
and Vulgate lkfw: in this text instead of lkf@. To have two corruptions of the exact nature within two verses of each other seems to be an erroneous assumption. Thus, reconstruction is not advised. 8.19b The Septuagint witness has an exceptionally lengthy subordinate clause comprising three prepositional phrases: kai\ pa/nta ta \ kth/nh kai\ pa=n peteino\n kai\ pa=n
e9rpeto\n kinou/menon (cf 8.1); so for MT to read #omIirohf #omerehf lkow: PwO(hf-lkfw: hmfhIib@;ha-lkfw:
is a proposed emendation. Should the text be revised in this way #omIirohf #omerehf would share verbatim occurrences in 7.14 but more importantly 8.17. Reasoning this to be an error of parablepsis we concur the text should be reconstructed accordingly.16 9.2a The Greek codices add kai\ e0pi\ pa=si toi=j kth/nesi which is equivalent to the Hebrew
hmfhIib@;ha-lk@f l(aw:. Should this be inserted, therefore? The proposed emendation is discarded. According to the lectio brevior principle the phrase is not adopted. b 9.2 Two mss of the SP read lkbw as opposed to lkob;@. This common discrepancy is in no need of repair (see similar examples above).
9.4 Eißfeldt judges that wmd, ―its blood,‖ is probably a gloss of wmdnb, ―in its destruction,‖
so one ought to add -nb. The verbal form of Mdn features thrice (Ps 49.13, 21; Hos 4.6), but nowhere does this allegedly correct noun form occur. The text is intelligible as is and needs no alteration.
9.5 A few old Latin mss, the SP, Syriac, Targum Pseudo Jonathan, and Vulgate attest K=@)w:
rather than K=@)aw: (MT). Whether or not the quiescent ʾālep should take the pataḥ is the issue. Proper syllabification dictates MT‘s attestation; also, Mp notes how this particle—pointed per MT—occurs four other times in the Hebrew Bible (Ex 9.15; Num 22.20; Josh 22.19 [and it starts half of those verses]). Thus the text should stand as is.
16 Cf. Hendel, Text of Genesis 1-11, 56. 23
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
a 9.7 A few mss of the SP have w@cr:#$w: instead of w@cr:#$i. The MT‘s vowel pointing and syllabification is not incorrect. b 9.7 Eißfeldt has suggested w@br:w @ (―increase‖) to be read w@dr:w@ (―rule‖) so as to conform to 17 Gen 1.28. This is unwarranted and may not be likely the intention of the text, as √br is a key word/verb throughout the Flood Narrative. 9.10a The old Latin, SP, LXX, Syriac, and Targum Pseudo Jonathan and the Palestine
Targum all attest to the presence of a conjunctive wāw fused to hmhbb as well as the absence of a dāgēš in the first bêt. Regarding the dāgēš, Mp notes how six of ten occurrences of this form do take the dāgēš. The recommendation is accepted based on near universal agreement amongst textual witnesses. b 9.10 The original Greek witness is lacking the equivalent of Cr)h tyx lkl, so perhaps the 18 Hebrew phrase should be deleted. Indeed, Cr)h tyx lk* does feature earlier in the verse (cf. Gen 1.25, 30; 9.2); hence it is likely a dittography and should be omitted. c 19 9.11 SP has tyx#Ohl over against MT‘s tx#Ol (see note 6.17 and its judgment). 9.15 The text critical issue here is the same as above et passim. No emendation is needed.
To summarize the major emendations of the (BHS) text: in 7.2 the twofold wt#)w #y) have both been changed to hbqnw rkz (albeit there is no translational difference); in 7.9 Myhl) is edited to hwhy. 0.2 Para-Textual Annotations The Masoretes considered Gen 6.9 a major demarcation in the Pentateuch, for the first (Bereishit) ranges from Gen 1.1–6.8 thus commencing a new (Noach) extending from Gen 6.9–11.32.20 In the Babylonian tradition the Pentateuch was divided into 21 54 sections (tw#Orp, abbreviated #Orp]) in order to read through it in a one year cycle.
Similar to the are the smaller āîunits (Myrds, ‗order, sequence‘ abbreviated s0). In the Palestinian tradition the Torah is parcelled into 167 liturgical readings so as to be read
17 Hendel (Text of Genesis 1-11, 57) notes, ―the difference between wdrw and wbrw is a single letter, making assimilation by reminiscence an easy error. It is not likely that a graphic confusion of b/d aided this change, though such a confusion is possible in some periods.‖ 18 Cf. Hendel, Text of Genesis 1-11, 57. 19 Mp indicates Cr)h tx#Ol also appears in Ezek 30.11. 20 At the end of this first tw#Orp within the text, is an enumeration w&m&q&, which indicates there are 146 verses that comprise the tw#Orp. 21 Tov, Textual Criticism, 53; Page H. Kelley, et al., The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998), 169-170. 24
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
once every three years.22 The Flood Narrative has three such corpora: the fifth (Gen 6.9–7.24), sixth (Gen 8.1-14), and seventh (Gen 8.15–9.17) of the Pentateuch. Other more ubiquitous para-textual structural features are the (p) and 23 (s) paragraph markers, open and closed paragraphing units respectively; lacunae may also serve a similar function in subdividing units. The sum of these paragraph markers outlines the Flood Story as follows: A. The Predicament, pt.1 (6.5-8)24 B. The Predicament, pt.2 (6.9-12)25 C. Construction of Communicated and Executed (6.13-22)26 D. The Flood (Gen 7.1–8.14) 27 E. Exodus from (8.15–9.7)28 F. The Covenant (9.8-17)29 Ultimately, there does not appear to be a salient system by which and paragraph markers are registered.30 0.3 Translation of Gen 6.5–9.17 See Appendix A for our translation of the Gen 6.5–9.17 emended text.
22 Tov, Textual Criticism, 53; Kelley, et al., The Masorah of BHS, 155. 23 Tov, Textual Criticism, 50-51. ―An open paragraph had to commence at the beginning of a new line. Furthermore, the preceding line had to be left partially or wholly blank. Closed paragraphs, on the other hand, had to commence at a point other than the beginning of a line. It could begin on the same line with the concluding word of the previous paragraph (separated by a brief space), or written after an indentation on the next line‖ (Kelley, et al., The Masorah of BHS, 155). Cf. William R. Scott, A Simplified Guide to BHS (4th ed.; N. Richland Hills, Tex.: BIBAL Press, 2007), 1. 24 These verses are enclosed by a (p) marker on each end. 25 The pericope is demarcated from the (p) (which is also the beginning of a new reading [h&]) to the (s) marker. 26 This pericope extends from the (s) to (s). 27 The pericope extends between the two (s) markers, the second of which marks the beginning of a reading (wO). The BHS editor of Genesis would subdivide this act into three scenes by means of lacunae: 7.1-5, 6-24; 8.1-14. 28 This pericope is set from (s) (and the beginning of reading [zO]), to the next (s). Eißfeldt would also subdivide this into a few more scenes based on lacuna formatting: 8.15-19, 20-22; 9.1-7. 29 This pericope has its boundaries extending from the (s) to the (p), which is also the end of a reading (x&). 30 As Scott (Simplified Guide, 1) remarks, ―At one time there was a significant difference between an ‗open‘ paragraph (one starting on a new line) and a ‗closed‘ paragraph (which started on the same line as the preceding paragraph with a short space separating the two). …Over the years, increasingly inconsistency developed concerning this difference in format, and it was largely ignored by the time of Codex Leningradensis, which does not mark the paragraphs with p or s. These marks are added by the editors of BHS.‖ In the case of Genesis, the BHS editor is O. Eißfeldt. 25
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1. Synchrony
E. Talstra explains, ―the synchronic analysis is able to describe how the reader‘s progress through the text slowly but surely constructs the ‗world of the text‘ from syntactic, lexical, and stylistic elements, it does not ask and answer the question whether the textual composition is an original unity or an evolved unity which is grounded in more than one historical situation.‖31 Such is the nature of the foregoing exegetical investigation.
1.1 Literary and Linguistic Analyses Literary structures of many sorts, both great and small in size, will be analyzed in this section.32 Within these skeletal structures exegetical loci include the study of linguistic phenomena, syntax of sentences in various aspects, and a number of stylistic elements. 1.1.1 Macro-Structures of Gen 6-9* Several Flood Narrative macro-structures have been proffered in past scholarship, most of which feature concentric arrangements to various extents,33 or, more generally, diptyches.34 1.1.1.1 Panelling: 6.5–8.1a (cf. 2.1.3) We detect, similarly, a panelling structure in Gen 6.5–8.1a.35
A Man‘s wickedness ((r) on earth Earth corrupted (√tx#) [6.5a, 11a] B Inclinations of man only evil always Earth full of violence [6.5b, 11b] C God grieved & pained b/c of man God saw earth corrupt b/c of man [6.6&7c, 12] D God to wipe out man & animals God to bring an end of all flesh [6.7a, 13a] E for he is sorry he made them for earth is filled with violence [6.7b, 13b] F Noah is favoured by God Noah is righteous, blameless [6.8, 9b]
G Cov‘t with those who‘ll enter Righteous persons to enter [6.18; 7.1] H Faunae to be kept alive (t[w]yxhl) Faunae to be kept alive (twyxl) [6.19-20, 7.2-3] I Noah is obedient Noah is obedient [6.22; 7.5]
31 Solomon‟s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings 8, 14-61 (CBET, 3; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharaoh Publishing House, 1993), 169. 32 ―Structure can be defined as the network of relations among the parts of an object or a unit‖ (S. Bar- Efrat, ―Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative,‖ VT 30/2 [1980]: 155). 33 E.g., Wenham‘s well-known palistrophe which contains no less than 15 items on either side of the single-centred component (―The Coherence of the Flood Narrative,‖ VT 28/3 [1978]: 338). For an earlier and more condensed model see B.W. Anderson (―From Analysis To Synthesis: The Interpretation Of Genesis 1-11,‖ JBL 97/1 [1978]: 38); so Laurence A. Turner, Genesis (RNBC; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 43. 34 Thomas L. Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001), 178. 35 Similarly, Christoph Dohmen, ―Untergang oder Rettung der Quellenscheidung? Die Sintfluterzählung als Prüfstein der Pentateuchexegese‖ in Studies in the Book of Genesis Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction, and History (ed. A. Wénin; BETL, 155; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001), 95-100. Walsh (Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative [Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001], 11 n.7) defines ―the term ‗panel‘ to refer to one of the sets of corresponding subunits…of a diptych.‖ All scripture references in this chapter are to Genesis, unless otherwise specified. 26
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
J Noah is 600 when Flood comes In 600th year of Noah‘s life Flood comes [7.6, 11-12] K Noah‘s family enters Noah‘s family enters [7.7a, 13] L Pairs of animal enter Pairs of animal enter [7.8-9a, 14-16aα] M Just as God commanded Noah Just as God commanded Noah [7.9b, 16aβ] N Deluge (lwbmh) will come Deluge (lwbmh) comes [7.10, 17a]
O Floodwaters increase (Mymh wbryw) Floodwaters increase (wbryw) [7.17bα, 18a] P Waters prevail (Mymh wrbgyw) Waters prevail (wrbg Mymhw) [7.18a, 19a] Q floats (Mrt) on the water floats (Klt) on the water [7.17bβ, 18b] R Mountains become covered Mountains are covered [7.19b, 20]
S All animal kingdom perishes ((wg) All animal kingdom is wiped out (hxm) [7.21a, 23aβ] T All humanity perishes ((wg) All humanity is wiped out (hxm) [7.21b, 23aαβ] U Every living thing dies (twm) Every living thing is wiped out (hxm) [7.22, 23aα] V Except those in the Except those in the [7.23b; 8.1a]
In each of the columns an abridged form of the (opening of the) story is presented; the data in each row corresponds with the one juxtaposed, individually and collectively.36 At times there are linguistic similarities between rows (e.g., H, N) while in other instances there are meaningful dissimilarities (e.g., A, Q), and still other cases display linguistic synthesis within columns and not rows (e.g., S and T). The variety and uniformity highlighting the first half of the story is intriguing and can be viewed alternatively in the following structural observation which spans much of the same material. 1.1.1.2 Forward Sequencing: 6.17–7.24 (cf. 2.1.3) In forward sequential symmetry there are a number of parts in a set arrangement that is recapitulated and often redoubled.37 Such is the nature of the narrative extending from Gen 6.17–7.24 where events are basically told fivefold each containing up to five key components. There are three constant parts (A,B,C), one consistent part (FRAME), and one consistent part that deviates in succession (+). From the time the destructive deluge is revealed until the flood‘s apex, the story with clear and coherent elements is advanced with incremental progression.38 This forward sequencing runs as follows.39
FRAME ―I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die.‖ (6.17) A Noah and his family, the future covenant participants, shall enter . (6.18) B Pairs of every animal genus shall be kept alive in . (6.19-21)
36 Admittedly, some scriptural data has been jettisoned to manufacture the schematic more uniformly. These contents are: 6.14-16 (information regarding construction of the ), 6.21 (the instruction of storing food on the ), 7.4 (the announcement of 40 days and nights of rainfall after seven days), 7.16b (the datum of God closing the door of the ark), and 7.24 (the reiteration of waters prevailing for 150 days). 37 Walsh (Style and Structure, 36) would call this ―‗parallel symmetry‘‖ of ―more than two sequences: ABCA`B`C` A``B``C``.‖ 38 R.E. Longacre (―The Discourse of the Flood Narrative,‖ JAAR 47/1 [1979]: 133) attests, ―[t]he slow- moving and redundant nature of the pre-peak episodes is explained as OVERLAY—a rhetorical device in which the same ground is gone over repeatedly in a way which highlights important motifs.‖ 39 All biblical citations are from the RSV throughout this work, unless otherwise specified as the author‘s own translation in which case the author‘s initials (JJS) are furnished. 27
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
C ―Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.‖ (6.22)
FRAME` A` ―Then the LORD said to Noah, ‗Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation.‘‖ (7.1) B` Take seven sets of clean animals, male and female, are to be kept alive (in ). (7.2-3) +` ―‗For in seven days I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living thing that I have made I will blot out from the face of the ground.‘‖ (7.4) C` ―And Noah did all that the LORD had commanded him.‖ (7.5)
FRAME`` ―Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters came upon the earth.‖ (7.6) A`` ―And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons‘ wives with him went into the ark, to escape the waters of the flood.‖ (7.7) B`` Clean animals and unclean animals, male and female, went into the . (7.8-9a) C`` ―as God had commanded Noah.‖ (7.9b) +`` Seven days had come and the flood was upon the earth/land. (7.10)
FRAME``` ―In the six hundredth year of Noah‘s life…all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened. And rain fell upon the earth forty days and forty nights.‖ (7.11-12) A``` Noah and all his kin had entered the . (7.13) B``` Pairs of every animal genus, male and female, along with Noah—who possessed the breath of life— had entered the . (7.14-16a) C``` ―as God had commanded him.‖ (7.16bα) +``` ―The flood continued forty days upon the earth.‖ (7.17a)
The FRAME in each piece, except the second, provides introductory information concerning the Flood: if it has not yet come when it will, if it has come what it is doing. The A components concerns the people who enter the ; these are righteous Noah, his wife, and their progeny. Similarly the B parts of the structure delineate the registry of animal species which are inside the , as well as those without. Interestingly, the first (6.17-22) and fourth (7.11-17a) units speak of the pairs of animals to be spared—one male and one female of any one specie (6.19, 20; 7.15). The second (7.1-5) and third (7.6-10) units, alternatively, speak of the clean and unclean classifications of animals species; further, in the second unit the number specification of clean animals is seven (7.2, 3), and seven couples of clean animals is implied (via opposite inference) in the third unit (7.8-9). Thus, the animal references form a chiasm: Forward Sequence 1 X Pairs of all animals Forward Sequence 2 Y Clean animals: seven couples. Unclean animals: one couple Forward Sequence 3 Y` Clean animals (seven couples). Unclean animals: one couple Forward Sequence 4 X` Pairs of all animals C parts are brief statements highlighting the obedience of Noah to God‘s instructions and commands. Finally, there is an additional piece which is represented as + and not a letter because it is not present in every unit (wanting in the first) and because, when present, it alternates in
28
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
position before (second unit) and after (third and fourth units) the C piece.40 Nevertheless, + is consistent in what it relates; this component communicates timeline. In the first unit there is not a specified timeline of events (see the contention of a particular tense comprised in each unit below). God orates the timeline in the second unit: seven days (7.4). These seven days have been completed, as recorded in the third unit (7.10). Once the Deluge transpires the + piece conveys: ―The flood continued forty days upon the earth‖ (7.17a). Next, the forty days of rain have finished, so the fifth + unit tells how ―the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days‖ (7.24). Thus, each + part gives a timeline in the amount of days concerning the status of floodwaters. Hence, above are four block units of forward paralleling symmetry which encompasses a mass of literary material. With quite an exorbitant amount of repetition, what is being achieved by the author(s)/redactor(s)? One facet of the resumptive repetition in the forward symmetry is the augmentation of details.41 This applies only to the FRAME and + components since A, B, and C are static elements and cannot be enumerated. After the four units encompassing 6.17–7.17a the forward symmetry alters somewhat as it continues in the fifth unit (7.17b-24). Whereas the general pattern is still present the FRAME exhibits immediate repetition while the A and B components demonstrate alternate repetition in chiastic form.42
FRAME````a Waters increase and prevail with the result that the is lifted off the ground and floating around. (7.17b-19) FRAME````b Waters increase and prevail with the result that they exceed the height of the mountaintops. (7.19-20) B```` All animals (outside of the ) die. (7.21a) A```` All mankind (outside of the ) dies—everything with the breath of life. (7.21b-22) A````a God blotted out every living thing (outside of the ), including mankind. (7.23aα) B````b and every kind of animal. (7.23aβ) C```` ―Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark‖ as commanded. (7.23b) +```` ―And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.‖ (7.24)
At the climax of the Deluge the structure of the narrative undergoes a change from the previous thoroughly uniformed pattern. Here there are dual FRAMEs, B, and A components, though there is only one C and + part; further, there is some semblance of a chiasm under this arrangement. This amplifying literary alteration may be a technique implemented in order to
40 This may be an example of literary insertion; cf. D.T. Tsumura, ―Literary Insertion (AXB Pattern) in Biblical Hebrew,‖ VT 33/4 (1983): 468-482. 41 Cf. Burke O. Long, ―Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography,‖ JBL 106/3 (1987): 399. 42 Walsh (Style and Structure) comments, ―[t]he genius…of alternating repetition is that it allows the narrator to achieve what is almost impossible in a linear medium like literature: the depiction of simultaneity‖ (52). Such is the case here: there are simultaneous views of the waters‘ rise and destructive force everywhere outside the . 29
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
mirror the tumultuously expanding state of the destructive deluge, and/or to slow down (slow motion) the devastating ordeal at its climax. The above five paralleling units also display a remarkable syntactical structure regarding its verbal system which factors greatly into the forwarding of sequences. In the first unit of forward progression (6.17-22) approximately half (nine of seventeen) the verbal e e tenses are either in the yiqtol or w qatal form. Whether a sentence only has w qatal …ytmqhw
(…t)bw [6.18]) or whether a sentence has yiqtol governing infinitive constructs …)ybt
(twyxhl…w)by…; wyhy…tyxhl [6.19-20]), or whether yiqtol is the governing verb over e 43 subsequent w qatals (…hyhw…tps)w…lk)y [6.21]) the syntax of these verbal arrangements express future action.44 Future is further represented in Gen 6.17-22 by weqatal extending the 45 syntactical thrust of the anterior participle (…ytmqhw…)ybm ynnh …t)bw [6.18-19]), for ―[t]he future expressed by the participle is usually a near future‖ and a ―nuance of proximity 46 is often emphasized by hnIi@hi‖. Thus, the verbal syntax represented in Gen 6.17-22, and determined by the general context, communicates the Deluge will be a future action since it is being foretold by God. In the second unit of paralleling forward sequence (7.1-5) the verbal syntax is less uniform than the other units. God speaks imperatively to Noah ()b) and reflects on his past perception of the earth/land‘s corruption (qatal: yty)r); then God instructs (yiqtol: xqt) e Noah about his future action. Next, another participle + w qatal construction …ry+mm ykn) 47 (…ytyxmw [7.4; cf. 6.17-18]) expresses future action. Since God‘s initial imperative is the governing verb, the aspect is near(er) future.
43 Joüon-Muraoka §119h; GKC §111a. Alexander Andrason (―The Panchronic Yiqtol: Functionally Consistent and Cognitively Plausible,‖ JHS 10/10 [2010]) labels this a modal yiqtol (10) which is ―prominent in the present and, especially, future temporal frames‖ (11). 44 Joüon-Muraoka §113b, §119c; GKC §107i-m. Contra Jan Joosten, (―The Indicative System of the Biblical Hebrew Verb and Its Literary Exploitation,‖ in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996 [ed. E. Van Wolde; Leiden: Brill, 1997] 58) who argues that yiqtol and weqatal are modal and thus express ―general present‖ and ―real present in questions.‖ 45 Ronald J. Williams (Hebrew Syntax: An Outline [2nd ed.; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1976], §214) takes this participle‘s paradigmatic function as relaying ―imminent action.‖ Cf. S. Van Den Eynde, ―The Missing Link, tyrb in the Flood Narrative: Meaning and Peculiarities of a Hebrew Key Word‖ in Studies in the Book of Genesis (ed. A. Wénin), 473. 46 See Joüon-Muraoka §119n where Gen 6.17-18 and 7.4 are the showcase examples of such phenomena (cf. §121e). 47 Longacre (―Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-modular Approach‖ in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis [ed. R.D. Bergen; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994] 54-55) states, ―When weqatal forms occur in such a string of command forms [e.g., ―Gen. 6:13-17 and 7:1-4‖], they do not simply continue the meaning of the command form but rather express result or outcome;‖ further, ―the weqatal forms constitute the mainline of development broken by occasional noun-plus-imperfect forms (N + yiqtol) which are considered to be secondary,‖ as is the case here. 30
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
In the third forward symmetrical telling of the flood events (7.6-10) there are six verbs. Half of the verbal occurrences are qatal with one we-X-qatal. These tenses communicate, in this case, present aspect;48 here ―qatal is used for an instantaneous action…being performed at the very moment of the utterance.‖49 The two wayyiqtols 50 continue the tense established by the qatals (yhyw; )byw [vv.7, 10]). Whereas the 7.1-5 unit was present command, 7.6-10 appears to be the present execution of the above imperatives. Similar to the third, the fourth unit of forward symmetry (7.11-17a) contains several qatals, half of ten. The other five verbal forms are wayyiqtols with one participle (7.16), which in this context connotes past tense51—especially in light of the verbal roots exhibited in Gen 7.15-16a: …w)b…My)bhw…w)byw. Consequently, with this participle sandwiched by qatal and wayyiqtol, these instances, as well as the whole fourth symmetrical unit, convey recent past.52 In the fifth and final symmetrical unit (7.17b-24) the number of wayyiqtols increases exponentially: thirteen out of sixteen verbal occurrences.53 The ubiquity of wayyiqtols at this stage informs the reader that this event has come to pass, that the deluge is (at this point of reading) firmly in the past.54 (The other three verbal tenses are qatals and we-X-qatal.55) The verbal syntactical thrust of wayyiqtols may further express pluperfect tense regarding the action of the water,56 despite the flood water causing new events to occur due to succession and consecution57 (e.g., climbs over mountain peaks, kills living things outside of ).58 This section can even be seen as a temporal overlay.59
48 So Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §164; Joosten, ―The Indicative System,‖ 60. 49 Joüon-Muraoka §112f; GKC §106g. 50 Joüon-Muraoka, §118c, describe the evolution of wayyiqtol by surveying how ―the wayyiqtol form became so strongly associated with its past tense function that it was even used at the beginning, or at least at the relative beginning of some narratives.‖ 51 Joüon-Muraoka §121f. 52 Joüon-Muraoka §112c. It is noted that ―action, put in the past, is assumed to continue in some way up to the present moment‖ (§112e). Boldface type original. 53 Wayyiqtol is ―the mainline of communication in narration‖ (C.H.J. van der Merwe, ―Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar‖ in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis [ed. R.D. Bergen], 23). 54 Joosten, ―The Indicative System,‖ 60; cf. C. van der Merwe, ―Discourse Linguistics,‖ 23-26. 55 Randall Buth (―Methodological Collision Between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The Problem of ‗Unmarked Temporal Overlay‘ and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol‖ in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis [ed. R.D. Bergen], 141 [148]) asserts waw-X-qatal is a ―break in chronology… to create an effect of a temporal pause for dramatic effect.‖ 56 Joüon-Muraoka §118c-d; GKC §106f(d); C. John Collins, ―The Wayyiqtol as ‗Pluperfect‘: When and Why,‖ TB 46/1 (1995): 117-140; A. Andrason, ―Biblical Hebrew Wayyiqtol: A Dynamic Definition,‖ JHS 11/8 (2011): 26. 57 Joüon-Muraoka §118c-d, h; GKC §106g; R.J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §164. 58 Cf. Jean-Marc Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives (JSOTSup, 295; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 82, 253. 59 Buth (―Methodological Collision,‖ 139) explains how in temporal overlay ―the story makes a temporal retreat; it ‗overlays‘ a time segment that has already been covered, and the author signals, or ‗marks,‘ 31
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Therefore, and in summary, the symmetry and repetition of Gen 6.17–7.24 differs more greatly in verbal syntax than the narratological advancement of events and/or details. This structural device causes this portion of the flood narrative to be read from the progressive temporal viewpoint: future–near future–present–recent past–past.60 1.1.1.3 Terminological Chiasmus: 7.4–8.12 (cf. 1.2.5.1 & 2.1.2) There is one relatively large scale chiastic structure which features the thread of recording days.61 A 7 days (deluge to come) [7.4] B 7 days (deluge comes) [7.10] C 40 days (precipitation) [7.12{17}] D 150 days (waters prevail) [7.24] D` 150 days (waters prevailed) [8.3] C` 40 days (evaporation) [8.6] B` 7 days (wait to send dove second time) [8.10] A` 7 days (wait to send dove third time) [8.12]
The issue of Flood chronology is a complex one; for instance, whether to chart days according to a solar or lunar calendar and whether these dates are consistent with calendric systems has given rise to much debate and dissension.62 Regardless of any diachronic function relayed by these time references, the aesthetic value of this chiasmic days thread through the synchronic lens is all the same. 1.1.2 Micro-Structures There are numerous other structural features imbedded in the Flood Narrative on a smaller scale. Below are eight such types of micro-structures in Gen 6-9* as well as observations of paronomasia. 1.1.2.1 Asymmetric Transposition: 6.5-13 (cf. 2.1.1; 2.1.2 & 2.3.1.1) To thoroughly convey the depravity of man and the irreparable state of the earth, as well as to thoroughly convey Noah as the exceptional righteous one, an asymmetric transpositional structure has been crafted in the story‘s introduction.63
A The LORD saw (√h)r) man‘s wickedness [6.5-6] B The LORD said (√rm)): I will blot out man and animals… [6.7] C But Noah found favour in the LORD‘s eyes [6.8] this overlay with the waw-X-qatal structure‖ (cf. …wrbg Mymhw, 7.19). 60 In narratological terms: anterior–anterior–simultaneous–ulterior–ulterior perspectives of the narrator (Tolmie, Narratology, 15-16). See Joüon-Muraoka §122 for a chart of temporal verbal forms. 61 Cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC 1; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 157; Bar- Efrat, ―Some Observations,‖ 168. 62 Lloyd M. Barré, ―The Riddle of the Flood Chronology,‖ JSOT 41/1 (1988): 3-20; Niels Peter Lemche, ―The Chronology in the Story of the Flood,‖ JSOT 18 (1980): 52-62; S. Najm and Ph. Guillaume, ―Jubilee Calendar Rescued from the Flood Narrative,‖ JHS 5/1 (2004): 10pp.; Wenham, ―Coherence,‖ 336-348; Sean E. McEvenue, The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer (Analecta Biblica, 50; Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971), 54-59. 63 Walsh, Style and Structure, 102. 32
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
C` Noah was righteous, blameless, and walked before God [6.9-10] A` God saw (√h)r) corrupted earth because of all flesh [6.11-12] B` God said (√rm)): I will make an end of all flesh… [6.13] The transposition takes place with A` preceding B`. Should these components be reversed a uniform chiasmus would emerge; as is, however, there is homogeny in the A,B…A`,B` pattern demonstrated by the key perception and oration terms. 1.1.2.2 Thread Envelope: 6.11-13 (cf. 2.1.1; 2.1.2 & 2.3.1.1) At the beginning of the Flood account an envelope64 structure is shaped by the two key terms which are God‘s grounds for causing said catastrophe: the adjective smx, and the verbal root 65 tx#.
[6.11a] …Cr)h tx#tw A [6.11b] smx Cr)h )lmtw B [6.12a] htx#n hnhw Cr)h-t)… A [6.12b] Cr)h-l(…r#b-lk tyx#h-yk A [6.13bα] …smx Cr)h h)lm-yk B [6.13bβ] Cr)h-t) Mtyx#m ynnhw A
66 This structure elucidates the alternation between the terms √tx#, ―corrupt‖ or ―ruin‖ and 67 smx, ―violence.‖ The first two usages of √tx# occur in the Niphal stem (wayyiqtol and 68 qatal, respectively), which is translated as ―corrupt;‖ the second two times √tx# is 69 employed it is in the Hiphil stem (qatal and qotel, respectively) to mean ―ruin.‖ Thus tx# x2 70 in this unit is paronomastic: the earth/land is so corrupt (√tx#; 6.11, 12 [cf. 9.11, 15]) that 71 72 it must be destroyed (√tx#; 6.13, 17). smx is utilized in identical syntax in each instance;
64 The term ―envelope‖ is used in this instance instead of ―chiasm‖ (though both denote reverse symmetry) because the latter typically exhibits unique elements throughout, while in this structure the inner parts (terms) are also that of the outer parts (terms) half of the structure is not. The envelope structure is schematized generally as A…A. Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup, 70; trans. Dorothea Shefer- Vanson with S. Bar-Efrat; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), 98n.2; Walsh, Style and Structure, 13n.1, 2. 65 ―It is more common in prose for repeated roots, words, and word pairs, and whole phrases to appear as structuring elements. …The more extensive the repetition and the closer together the repeated elements, the more evident it is‖ (Walsh, Style and Structure, 9). Such is the case here. Cf., McEvenue, Narrative Style, 41-42. 66 BDB, 1007; HALOT, 1470-1471. 67 BDB, 329; HALOT, 329. See also J.P. Harland, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6-9) (VTSupp 64; Brill: Leiden, 1996), 32-39. 68 BDB, 1007; HALOT, 1470-1471. 69 BDB, 1007; HALOT, 1470-1471. Cf. Barry Bandstra, Genesis 1-11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text (Baylor, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008), 354. 70 Moshe A. Zipor (―A Note on Genesis VI 13,‖ VT 41/3 [1991]: 367) states ― in vv. 11 and 12a is a metonym for ‗the civilization‘, ‗the cultural milieu‘ (cf. e.g. Lev. xix 29), and that is how it should be understood in v. 13 too.‖ Cf. Harland, ―A Further Note on Genesis VI 13,‖ VT 43/3 (1993) 408-411. 71 ―Instead of presenting the Flood as a punishment of immoral behaviour,‖ Guillaume states, ―Pg presents it as a homeopathic treatment of the decaying violence by the same decaying process that runs its full course‖ (Land and Calendar, 69). Cf. Bandstra, Genesis 1-11, 359-360; Bill T. Arnold, Genesis (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 99. 33
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
the word picture achieved by the pairing verb )lm is interesting considering the earth/land becomes filled with floodwaters and considering the fact that the verb )lm does not occur in the Flood Narrative again until Gen 9.1,73 where the earth/land is then to be filled with the progeny of mankind and all the animal species according to God‘s blessing.74 1.1.2.3 Detailed Panelling and Thread Link: 6.13, 17 The contents of the detailed panelling in 6.13 and 17 show synthetic parallelism; moreover, by vv.13+17 sandwiching the three verses regarding (6.14-16), the saving vessel is accentuated via contrast over against the destructive tone of the two-verse counterpart.
X The end is coming (√)b) floodwaters are coming (√)b) Y : destruction (√tx#) (6.14-16) : destruction (√tx#) Z of all flesh (r#b-lk) on earth (6.13) of all flesh (r#b-lk) under heaven (6.17)
Gen 6.13 was also part of the terminological envelope (6.11-13) with the key vocabulary smx 75 76 and tx#. Gen 6.17 possesses √tx# too, hence operating as a thread link. Thus, the construction of is linked to the Flood which is brought about because of corruption. 1.1.2.4 Parallelismus Membrorum: 7.17b-20 In the record of the waters increasing the sentence structure and syntax of 7.17b-20 seems to imitate the swelling of tumultuous floodwaters via parallelismus membrorum.77
.Cr)h l(m Mrtw hbth-t) w)#yw Mymh wbryw 7.17b
.Mymh ynp-l( hbth Kltw Cr)h l(m d)m wbryw Mymh wrbgyw 7.18
Mym#h-lk txt-r#) Myhbgh Myrhh-lk wskyw Cr)h l( d)m d)m wrbg Mymhw 7.19 78 [Myhbgh] Myrhh wskyw Mymh wrbg hl(mlm hm) hr#( #mx 7.20
In this literary unit there is parallelismus membrorum at play in each half of the above verses.79 In the first part of each verse the subjects and verbs are the focus of the parallelism; in the second part of the verses the effects of the former information is penned in a tightly intricate parallelism.
72 These are the only two occurrences of smx in Gen 1-11. H.A.J. Kruger (―Subscripts To Creation: A Few Exegetical Comments on the Literary Device of Repetition in Gen 1-11‖ in Studies in the Book of Genesis [ed. A. Wénin], 443) sees Mx, Ham, as a word play of smx. 73 ―Arguably the process is presented as a material one, but it could also be interpreted as attributive relational‖ (Bandstra, Genesis 1-11, 354). 74 CrE)fhf is replete in this structure, being either the subject, object, or antecedent of smx or tx#. 75 This is the only other occurrence of tx# in Gen 6-8; it is used again in 9.11, 15. On the other hand, smx is not written elsewhere in Gen 1-11. 76 A linked thread is ―where a tread in one unit‖ such as tx# in 6.11-13 ―is repeated once in the adjacent unit‖ like 6.17 (Walsh, Style and Structure, 176). 77 Cf. Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1992), 82. 78 See the textual apparatus in BHS concerning the word in brackets. 79 Vv. 18-20 are full verses while v.17 is actually v.17b; still, two distinct parts are evident. 34
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
In 7.16bα there is the typical V-S sentence order. In the 7.18aα the same subject
(Mymh) occurs yet takes another verb (wrbgyw), while the same verb from 7.16bα commences
7.18aβ (wbryw); this effect is syntactical inversion. But it happens again. 7.19a flips the same verb (√rbg) and subject (Mymh) of 7.18aα which results in another variety made up of the three words as well as yielding marked syntax: S-V order,80 we-X-qatal. In 7.20aβ the same subject and verb as before occurs yet switches positions as per the previous occasion: wrbg 81 Mymh (7.20aβ) versus wrbg Mymhw (7.19a). Imbued in this parallelismus also is the same prepositional phrase in the first three verses (Cr)h l([m] = [7.17bγ, 18aβ] 7.19a), and the adjective d)m which occurs in single in 7.18aβ and in binary in 7.19a. The sentence structure on a wider basis is also synchronistical. In roughly the first half of the verses the rise in waters is recorded, and the second half of said verses convey the effect that the rising floodwaters had. To illuminate this, the increasing and prevailing of the floodwaters caused the to be lifted and raised up off the ground (7.17β-γ), the to float on the waters (7.18b), the floodwaters to cover the high mountains (7.19b), indeed covering the [high] mountains (7.20b). Hence, this ―text [is] cleverly constructed to depict gradually the rise of the waters.‖82 1.1.2.5 Chiasms: 7.21-23a & 8.5-14 (cf. 2.3.1.1; 2.3.1.2) To illustrate the thoroughness of the deluge‘s destruction a chiasm is employed.
A And all flesh died [(wg] that moved upon the earth, B birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, C and every man; D everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life [Myyx] died [twm]. D` He blotted out [hxm] every living thing [Mwqy] that was upon the face of the ground, C` man B` and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; A` they were blotted out [hxm] from the earth.
The terminology between component-parts of the chiasmus differs, thus yielding a diverse, yet synthetic vocabulary (cf. 1.1.1.1 O-R). Another chiasmus extends through the episode of the sending of the birds.
A Mountaintops visible [h)r] (by narrator) [8.5] B Noah opens window of [8.6] C Raven is sent forth yet does not return [8.7] D Dove is sent forth and returns [8.8-9]
80 Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §573.1, 5; Cf. C.H.J. van der Merwe and E. Talstra, ―Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The Interface of Information Structure and Formal Features,‖ ZA 15/16 (2002/2003): 68-107. 81 Gen 7.24 (separated in proximity from 7.20 in the final text though not in the P document) restates this verb and subject in the same arrangement as per 7.20aβ—which is actually yet another syntactical varietal in this context. 82 J.-L. Ska, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions (FAT, 66; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 7 (7-8). 35
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
D` Dove is sent forth and returns [8.10-11] C` Dove is sent forth yet does not return [8.12] B` Noah removes roof of [8.13bα] A` Ground viewed [h)r] by Noah [8.13bβ] Through the vicarious exploration of the birds and the removal of parts, Noah comes to know—see (h)r)—everything that the narrator and narratee have been perceiving (see further 1.2.2.2.3). 1.1.2.6 Concentricity: 9.12-17 (cf. 1.2.6.2 & 2.2.1.2.1; 2.3.2.1.2)
When God orates the covenant along with the covenantal sign, the ―bow‖ (t#q), he does so concentrically.83 A The sign of the covenant, a bow in the clouds, is being given [9.12-13] B When the bow is seen in clouds God will remember God‘s covenant [9.14-15a] C Waters will never become a flood that destroys all flesh [9.15b] B` When the bow is seen in clouds God will remember God‘s covenant [9.16] A` The sign of the covenantis established [9.17]
A and A` have the phrase tyrb(h)-tw)(l). B and B` contain the key word t#q. C addresses the cataclysm never to be repeated again, lwbm. In addition to the contents of the abridged concentric diagram, each piece (save C) reiterates in some form or fashion the covenantal parties.84 The perimeters of this concentric structure, further, contain the speech introduction
Myhl) rm)yw (9.12, 17). 1.1.2.7 Paronomasia There are a number of paronomasias concerning Noah‘s name throughout Gen 5-8.85 First, there is the pun between the Lord‘s emotional state at the beginning of the narrative and the protagonist‘s appellation: Adonai is sorry (√Mxn, Niphil [6.6, 7]) on account of mankind, save 86 Noah (xn [6.8]). In addition, Noah finds favour in the eyes of Adonai (6.8), favour (Nh) 87 being an anagram of Noah (xn). Second, the aetiological appellation of Noah in Gen 5 registers in the Gen 6-9. Lamech ―called his name Noah [xn], saying, ‗This one will comfort
83 Cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 194. 84 In fact, the ordered listing of covenantal partners form a symmetrical pattern (AABABB): v.12: Mkt) r#) hyh #pn-lk Nybw Mkynybw ynyb v.15: r#b-lkb hyh #pn-lk Nybw Mkynybw ynyb v.16: Cr)h-l( r#) r#b-lkb hyh #pn-lk Nybw Myhl) Nyb v.17: Cr)h-l( r#) r#b-lk Nybw ynyb In our interpretation v.13‘s wording (Cr)h Nybw ynyb) refers to the bow‘s physical location ―between me and the earth‖ (cf. Bandstra, Genesis 1-11, 489). Also note how God speaks in the first person throughout except in 9.16 where he refers to himself in the third person. 85 Cf. Hermann Gunkel, The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History (trans. W.H. Carruth; New York: Schocken Books, 1964), 76; Kruger, ―Subscripts To Creation,‖ 443. 86 Lloyd R. Bailey, Noah: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition (Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1989), 169. 87 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis; pt.1–From Adam to Noah: Genesis I-VI8. (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961), 307. 36
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
us/give us rest [√Mxn, Piel] from our work and from the toil of our hands because of the 88 ground which YHWH has cursed‘‖ (Gen 5.29; JJS). A verbal synonym of Mxn is xaw@n; and in 89 8.4 the rests, √xaw@n—assonance of xanO—on the mountains of Ararat. Along these lines, 90 the dove does not find at first xwnm, a resting place, for its feet (8.9). A third pun of Noah is found in the affect his sacrifice had on YHWH: xn / xxynh xyr(-t)). In sum, ―[t]hrough his xxyn offering [xn] brings God to xwn and consequently God removes his curse from the 91 ground‖ (8.21; cf. 3.16) bringing Mxn to all people (5.29).
Gen 5.29 foretells Noah to be the one who will lift the curse (√rr)) from the ground (cf. 3.14, 17), additionally;92 and, near the end of the Flood Narrative God resolves to never again 93 curse (√llq) the ground because of man (8.21). Note the different verbs. llq is also employed in Gen 8.8, 11 to communicate how the waters ―abated‖ from the earth; so, does the curse abate along with the floodwaters!? The referred curse may also play on Ararat.
Again, it was foretold that Noah (xn) would lift the curse (hrr)) from the ground (5.29); 94 accordingly, the rests (√xaw@n) on Ararat (+rr)) (8.5). This pun is to be seen as foreshadow of when God announced the curse on the ground as being put to rest (8.21)—but the changing of seasons shall never rest (√tb#; 8.22).
1.2 Narrative Criticism Having elucidated some of the Flood Narrative‘s most formidable literary structural and linguistic features, and its verbal systems we now approach the interpretation of those
88 Bailey, Noah, 168. 89 The only other time the verb xaw@n is found in Gen 1-11 is 2.15: ―The LORD God took the man and put him [√xaw@n] in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it.‖ Perhaps a corollary idea is intended here: God (intentionally) places / causes to rest / causes to remain in/on Ararat. If this correlation is legitimate then the events of Gen 8.4 portent God‘s sovereignty. Cf. Richard S. Hess, Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1-11 (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 28-29, 115-118. 90 Modupẹ Oduyọye, The Sons of the Gods and the Daughters of Men: An Afro-Asiatic Interpretation of Genesis 1-11 (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984), 53-54. 91 Ellen Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 82-83. Also Van Wolde ―A Text-Semantic Study of the Hebrew Bible, Illustrated with Noah and Job,‖ JBL 113/1 (1994): 24-26. 92 See H. Van Dyke Parunak, ―The Discourse Implications of Resumption in Hebrew r#$e)a: Clauses: A Preliminary Assessment from Genesis‖ in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible (eds. L.J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J.P. Fokkelman; Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996), 115. 93 Christoph Levin (trans. Margaret Kohl), ―The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch,‖ JBL 126/2 (2007): 221; Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 235-237. 94 See G. Von Rad, Genesis (rev. ed.; OTL; trans. John H. Marks; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1961), 128. 37
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
analyses through the methodology of narrative criticism,95 or narratology as it is also called,96 so to extract from the prose another major synchronic viewpoint.97 The multiplicity of narratological lenses shall be narrator–narratee, real/implied author–real/implied reader, characters, events, time, and setting. 1.2.1 Narrator–Narratee The narrator is that neutral,98 facilitating,99 and often undetectable100 voice through which the story is told.101 And ―[j]ust as there is a narrator…so there is a narratee, the listener/reader to whom the story is told‖; indeed, ―[f]or the most part, the narratee shares the cultural world of the narrator, approves and disapproves of the same things, and, in short, has the same conceptual point of view as the narrator.‖102 It is widely held that the narrator is omniscient,103 and is by virtue of that trait a reliable informant (to the narratee).104 This reliability is no better seen in the Flood Narrative than how it is established in some of the first few verses. In Gen 6.11-13 (whose lexical structure was discussed above) a predicament is essentially thrice stated: first by the narrator
95 ―Narrative criticism is like structuralism in that it is also a text-centered (objective) approach to literature‖ (Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? [GBS; ed. D.O. Via Jr.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1990], 14). 96 Adele Berlin (Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative [BiLiSe, 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983], 15, 17) defines ―[t]he study of narrative, or narratology, is a subdivision of poetics. Poetics, the science of literature, is not an interpretive effort—it does not aim to elicit meaning from a text. Rather it aims to find the building blocks of literature and the rules by which they are assembled.‖ ―This kind of poetics begins with the text, with a close reading that notes linguistic structures, patterns, and usages, recurring devices and unusual ones.‖ 97 For a survey of (synchronic) literary criticism see P.R. House, ―The Rise and Current Status of Literary Criticism of the Old Testament‖ in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism (SBTS, 2; ed. P.R. House; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 3-23. 98 So Van Wolde, ―Linguistic Motivation and Biblical Exegesis‖ in Narrative Syntax (ed. E. Van Wolde), 32, 34. Contra Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 34-35): who says a reader can be ―imbued with a powerful positive or negative charge‖ and ―carefully directed and controlled even‖ to adopt the narrator‘s perspective. 99 Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (trans. Yael Lotan; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2001), 94. 100 Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 49) discusses how a narrator can either tell or show what is occurring; showing is essentially undetectable. Tolmie (Narratology, 18) calls the absence of narrator/narratee ―heterodiegetic, whereas their presence is ―homodiegetic.‖ Cf. Berlin, Poetics, 38. 101 Cf. also Jean-Louis Ska ―Narrator or Narrators‖ (221-231) in his Exegesis of the Pentateuch. 102 Berlin, Poetics, 52, 53. 103 ―The narrator has free access to the minds (―hearts‖) of his dramatis personae, not excluding God himself…he enjoys free movement in time (among narrative past, present, and future) and in space (enabling him to follow secret conversations, shuttle between simultaneous happenings or between heaven and earth).‖ (Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading [Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985], 84) Cf. Berlin, Poetics, 44; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 19. 104 ―[I]n a biblical story, God is to be trusted for reasons of faith, and the narrator is to be trusted, in this respect, as above God and as the source of the report about God. Both God and the narrator must be trustworthy and hence are the benchmark of trustworthiness for all other personae.‖ (Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 95) Cf. Tolmie, Narratology, 23; Walsh, Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 83. 38
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
(6.11),105 second it transforms into the thoughts of God (6.12), and third, the same contents become the words of God (6.13).
Myhl)h ynpl Cr)h tx#tw 6.11 smx Cr)h )lmtw htx#n hnhw Cr)h-t) Myhl) )ryw 6.12 Cr)h-l( wkrd-t) r#b-lk tyx#h-yk Mhynpm smx Cr)h h)lm-yk ynpl )b r#b-lk Cq xnl Myhl) rm)yw 6.13 Cr)h-t) Mtyx#m ynnhw This congruent transmitting from narrator to God‘s thoughts to God‘s words (represented by underlined words) demonstrates the reliability of the Flood Narrative narrator,106 since in each instance the parlance is of the same ilk.107 The narrator‘s voice, in contradistinction from any character‘s voice, is discernibly the greatest in speech introduction formula and speech conclusion or obedience report formulae, as well as elongated text wherein a character does not speak. Throughout the Flood Narrative the text alternates between that of the narrator and that of a character, who in every case is God. Narrator‘s Text [6.5-12] Character‘s Text [6.13-21] Narrator‘s Text [6.22] Character‘s Text [7.1-4] Narrator‘s Text [7.5–8.15] Character‘s Text [8.16-17] Narrator‘s Text [8.18–9.1] Character‘s Text [9.2-17*]
E. Van Wolde has proffered that whenever a character‘s text is sandwiched by a narrator‘s text the former is thereby marked.108 Hence, God‘s proliferations are noteworthy, as well as the narrator as mouthpiece.
105 Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 30), who believes the narrator to pass judgment as a rarity, exemplifies Gen 6.11 as one such scarcity. 106 Alter (Art of Biblical Narrative, 68) notes, ―the repeated translation of thought into speech allows for a certain clarifying stylization, a dramatic vividness and symmetry of effect.‖ 107 ―Variations in the character‘s speech, however, do not necessarily disconfirm reliability. They simply invite the reader to speculate on the character‘s motives for using different terms‖ (Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 87). Another example centres on the description of Noah‘s personae (see further 1.2.3.2.1 below). The narrator said, ―Noah was a righteous [qydc] man, blameless in his generation [√r(w)d]; Noah walked with God‖ (Gen 6.9b). This is reinforced by God‘s own words, ―for I have seen that you are righteous [qydc] before me in this generation [√r(w)d]‖ (Gen 7.1b). Cf. Jonathan Magonet, ―Character/Author/Reader: The Problem of Perspective in Biblical Narrative‖ in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies (eds. L.J. de Regt, J. de Waard, and J.P. Fokkelman), 12. 108 ―Linguistic Motivation,‖ 33. She also makes a good distinction of an ―indirect narrator‟s text‖ where ―the narrator does not directly speak from a narrator‘s point of view but indirectly, through the character‘s point of view: the character is represented as a thinking, observing, feeling or speaking subject, but the representing is done by the narrator‖ (32). Such is the case (and distinction to the graph above) in 6.5-7 and 8.21-22 chiefly. 39
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.2.2 Real/Implied Author–Real/Implied Reader The conveyance of information from narrator to narratee is only one communicative aspect; there are more invested parties in the transmission of a biblical text than just these, actually, for ―both narrator and narratee are intratextual devices that can be manipulated by the implied author in various ways.‖109 The narrator, then, is the tone and/or voice with which the real/implied author writes;110 and, what s/he writes is communicated, via narratee, to the real/implied reader,111 who is reading/listening and understanding the text the way in which the real/implied intended it to be received and internalized.112 One illustration shall suffice for this narratological aspect (albeit bordering diachronic study). By making explicit the covenant in ch.9 as an everlasting one that encompasses all future generations (Mlw( trdl, 9.12) the real/implied author is directly communicating to the real/implied reader; for, Mlw( trdl—in which the real/implied reader exists—is in contrast to Noah‘s rwd (7.1), in which the story is set and which is a past generation from the point of the real/implied author writing this story. 1.2.3 Characters The characters of the Flood Narrative include God, Noah, Noah‘s family, the animals, and, actually, the ; each shall be discussed in turn.113 1.2.3.1 God There has been some discussion as to whether or not God should be inducted into the cast of characters in biblical narrative.114 Because God is viewed, in Gen 1-11 especially, as a balance of transcendence in heaven and immanence on earth we will consider God a so-called character, for God often intervenes into and alters world events.115
109 Tolmie, Narratology, 15. 110 By real/implied author we mean anyone, real or perceived, who has had a hand in writing, redacting or editing literary material into its final-form; see Tolmie, Narratology, 8-9; 115ff. 111 By real/implied reader (or listener) we think in terms of any audient/ce, whether reading or being read to, for whom a text has been fashioned, whether knowingly (real) or unknowingly (implied). 112 Tolmie, Narratology, 132; Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 130. 113 ―The ‗characters‘ perspective‘ differs from all others—God‘s, the narrator‘s, the reader‘s—in its multiplicity. Each character observes the world from his own perspective. And it is their divergence…that keeps the action going, just as their convergence makes for its resolution‖ (Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 172). 114 So Van Wolde (―Text-Semantic Study,‖ 23): ―God is, from a narrative point of view, the main character in this [i.e. Flood] story‖ (see also her ―Linguistic Motivation,‖ 34); Robert L. Cohn (―Narrative Structure and Canonical Perspective in Genesis,‖ JSOT 25/3 [1983]: 5): ―Throughout the Adam and Noah narratives God is the main character as well as the director, property man, and stage and lighting manager.‖ Cf. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 34. Contra Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 83) who resolves: ―If God remains in heaven, God must be taken off the list of personae on stage.‖ 115 ―In Genesis itself, the transition is from a God who acts directly upon the world (Genesis 1-11) and who speaks with humans (Genesis 12-36) to a God who is only active indirectly and in the background of events 40
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.2.3.1.1 God‟s Audible Speech (cf. 2.2.1.1.1) The only direct discourse in the Flood Narrative comes from the mouth of God, anthropomorphically speaking, both external and internal speech.116 God speaks audibly before (Gen 6.13-21; 7.1-4) and after (Gen 8.16-17; 9.1-17) the deluge. Of the four discourses God‘s second and third utterances to Noah are correspondingly comparable, for they are the directives to enter and exit the respectively.117
…hbth-l) Ktyb-lkw ht)-)b 7.1
…Kt) Kynb-y#nw Kynbw Kt#)w ht) hbth-Nm )c 8.16
These directives are the core of the message, while logistics are enumerated. In God‘s initial address to Noah, God discloses a looming catastrophe by means of a flood, the blueprints of the (its materials [6.14], dimensions [6.15], particular features [6.16], occupants [6.18-20], and stored foodstuffs [6.21]), and a coming covenant;118 however, the order in which these components of the first speech are given is intriguing. God communicates two prospects which (at first) do not seem to correlate one to the other: the destruction of the earth/land and the building of a massive box. Though as God‘s discourse continues these two notions slowly merge into one complementary notion. The polarity-to- convergence arrangement by which God discloses information can be seen clearly in the following diagram.
(Genesis 37-50; see 50:20)‖ (Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible [trans. James Nogalski; Siphrut, 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010], 90). Sternberg (Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 153) states, ―[God] figures as both inspiring originator and individual viewpoint, as object and subject of representation, as marker of plot and agent, as means and end, as part and reason for the whole. In arranging his relations with God, therefore, the narrator operates under peculiar constraints.‖ 116 Actually, a ―character‘s text is always embedded in a narrator‘s text‖ (Van Wolde, ―Linguistic Motivation,‖ 31. 117 Van Wolde, (―Linguistic Motivation,‖ 33) would see these two character (i.e. God) texts as marked since they are sandwiched by (unmarked) narrator‘s texts. 118 Van Den Eynde, ―Missing Link,‖ 473: ―The meaning of tyrb in Gen 6,8 remains vague… this vagueness is deliberate and serves a narrative function in the overall story…[it] creates some tension and expectation.‖ 41
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
This diagram displays how the initial two topics would have seemed like polarities to Noah, the original audient; yet then how they coalesce into singular intelligibility by the conclusion of the forewarning.119 The fourth and final speech of God is 9.1-17 where the Deity blesses humanity and establishes a covenant with them and the fauna. Gen 9.1-17 is furthermore divided into four paragraphs to convey logical continuance of a subject which in the end supplements the development of a given topic. The paragraph divisions are implemented by means of the periodical interjection of speech formulae. So after the main introduction of God‘s discourse with rm)yw…Myhl) Krbyw (9.1), the narrator thrice adds the subsequent intrusions: rm)yw rm)l…Myhl) (9.8); Myhl) rm)yw (9.12); Myhl) rm)yw (9.17)—even though the speaker (God) does not change.120 In the first paragraph of his final speech (Gen 9.1-7), God‘s pronouncement of blessing upon humanity is framed by verbatim key verbiage.121
Cr)h-t) w)lmw wbrw wrp Mhl rm)yw 9.1b
.hb-wbrw Cr)b wcr# wbrw wrp@ Mt)w 9.7
The dual imperative (wbrw wrp) Noah received when entering the (re)new(ed) world was the very same given to Adam in the new world (1.22, 28; cf. 8.17).122 The contents within the confines of this frame include permitting mankind consumption of the meat of animals (9.2- 3), yet prohibiting the ingestion of the blood of any creature (9.4),123 and the prohibition of the shedding of human blood (9.5-6).124
119 McEvenue, Narrative Style, 46. 120 Van Wolde, (―Linguistic Motivation,‖ 44) calls this the narrator‘s foregrounding clauses. E.J. Revell (―The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of Biblical Hebrew,‖ VT 47/1 [1997]: 105) surmises, ―[t]he main function of the repetition‖ of speech formulae is ―to draw attention to the identity of the speaker in connection with the words presented‖; furthermore, the ―forms of overspecified designation …may be intended to mark the beginning of a new topic unit, a new section of the speech, or it may show that those words of that speaker deserve particular attention for other reasons‖ (e.g., Gen 9.12, 17). 121 Bezalel Porten and Uriel Rappaport, ―Poetic Structure in Genesis IX 7,‖ VT 21/3 (1971): 363-369. 122 Concerning the dominion parallel between Gen 1.28 and 9.2-3 see W.M. Clark, ―The Animal Series in the Primeval History,‖ VT 18/4 (1968): 447-449. See also Eugene Fisher, ―Gilgamesh and Genesis: The Flood Story in Context,‖ CBQ 32 (1970): 401; Peter Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT, 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 70 n.150. 123 See Fisher, ―Gilgamesh and Genesis,‖ 394; Edwin Firmage, ―Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda,‖ JSOT 82/1 (1999): 105; Stephen Reed, ―Human Dominion over Animals‖ in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective (SAC, 1; eds. W. Kim et al.; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2000), 336. 124 James E. Priest, ―Gen 9:6: A Comparative Study of Bloodshed in Bible and Talmud,‖ JETS 31/2 (1988): 145-151; Frank Crüsemann, The Torah: Theological and Social History of Old Testament Law (trans. Allan W. Mahnke; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1996), 291-292; Markus Zehnder, ―Cause or Value? Problems in the Understanding of Gen 9,6a,‖ ZAW 122/2 (2010): 81-89. 42
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Gen 9.6(a) has extensively been recognized for its poetic and chiastic nature.
Kp#y wmd Md)b Md)h Md Kp#
A` B` C` C B A The crux of the blood-shedding prohibition being because ―God made man in his own image‖ (Gen 9.6b). In the second paragraph (Gen 9.8-11), the multiplicity of genus is safeguarded based upon God‘s establishment of a covenant to never cut off all flesh again. The promise of the covenant is corollary to the way that God referred to it even before the flood commenced. When each covenantal pronouncement is juxtaposed an enveloping pattern is revealed. A I am bringing a flood upon the earth/land to destroy (all flesh) B I will raise a covenant C with humans and animals D —all who will go into the — E to live (6.17-19) ------B` I am raising a covenant C` with humans and animals D` —all who came out of the — E` to never cut off all flesh A` I will never bring another flood upon the earth/land to destroy (9.9-11) Longacre suggests ―an isolated weqatal in the narrative framework marks a climactic or at least a pivotal event.‖125 In Gen 9 an isolated weqatal is present in v.11 and refers to the establishing (√Mwq) of God‘s tyrb. This may very well be a climactic point in the narrative, for previously God said he will establish a covenant (6.18), later God is establishing it (9.9), in v.11 God established the covenant, and finally God says that he has established the covenant (9.17); thus the weqatal in 9.11 indicates the first point at which the tyrb is posterior in history (reading). In the last two paragraphs (9.12-17) discourse concerning the covenantal sign advances the topic of the establishment of the covenant (see 1.1.4.6). Whenever the bow (i.e., the covenantal sign) is viewed (√h)r; 9.14, 16) by God, God will remember (√rkz; 9.15, 16) his (unilateral) covenant, namely ―the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh‖ (9.15b). 1.2.3.1.2 God‟s Internal Speech (cf. 2.2.1.1.2; 2.3.2.2.1) God‘s actions are precipitate by (audible) speech which was precipitated by thoughts. Just as he spoke audibly, God is seen to have internal speech-thought before (6.5-7) and after (8.21b-
125 Longacre, ―Weqatal Forms,‖ 71. 43
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
126 127 22) the Flood as well. God‘s perspective of the world is conveyed by the particle hnh. Whereas the narrator has made mention of the world‘s status in 6.11, in 6.12 the vantage is through God‘s eyes, as it were: ―YHWH looked at the earth—and hnh: it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth‖ (6.12; JJS).128 This mental note is the catalyst for the Deluge (6.13b). After the Deluge God has internal soliloquy; this is linguistically expressed through 129 the phrase wbl-l) hwhy rm)yw. What precedes this soliloquy is the pleasing aroma of the sacrifice;130 and what succeeds it is God‘s resolution: ―‗I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man‘s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done‘‖ (Gen 8.21). This utterance is reminiscent of a foregone thought (6.5-6).131
Gen 8.21 Gen 6.5-6 1` 1 rcy yk A rcy-lkw A
2` 2 (r Md)h bl A (r qr wbl tb#xm A
3` 3 wyr(nm A Mwyh-lk A
wbl-l) hwhy rm)yw B` wbl-l) [hwhy] bc(tyw B
Gen 8.21 harkens back to God‘s internal statements of Gen 6.5-6 and restates (but does not reverse132) the previous verdict.133 Subsequently, what God privately resolved in Gen 8.21
(wbl-l) hwhy rm)yw) is next made public to Noah et al. after the blessing (Myhl) rm)yw; 9.8, 12, 17x2).134
126 Concerning the perplexity of speech-thought, see Robert Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981), 68. 127 Van Wolde (―Linguistic Motivation‖) poignantly calls this term ―the attention marker‖ (46), the ―focalizer‖ (47). Berlin (Poetics, 62) states the narratological usage of hnh is to ―indicate a shift in point of view,‖ and further ―to sometimes mark the perception of a character as distinct from that of the narrator.‖ See also Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 35; Tolmie, Narratology, 31-33. 128 Bandstra (Genesis 1-11, 356) postulates, ―hn@Iihi adds the element of contra-expectation and surprise to the report.‖ 129 Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 63) comments, ―the phrase ‗he said in his heart‘…in ancient times thought was considered to be inner, soundless speech.‖ Cf. Peter F. Ellis, The Yahwist: The Bible‟s First Theologian (Notre Dame, Ind.: Fides Publishers, Inc., 1968), 127-128. 130 There are 42 other occurrences of *x(w)xyn(h)(-)xyr* in Ex 29, Lev 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 17, 23, 26, Num 15, 28, 29, Ezek 6, 16, 20. 131 Cf. Wenham, ―Coherence,‖ 341. 132 Concerning the problem of God maintaining the identical position after the flood and its effects, see e.g.: Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 76; R.A.F. MacKenzie, ―The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis,‖ CBQ 17 (1955): 284; David L. Peterson, ―The Yahwist on the Flood,‖ VT 26/4 (1976): 441-446; Terence E. Fretheim, ―The God of the Flood Story and Natural Disasters,‖ CTJ 43/1 (2008): 34. 133 According to MacKenzie (―Divine Soliloquies,‖ 277-284, esp. 279-280, 281), these are two out of the seven instances in Genesis of Divine soliloquy—all of which are nP material. 134 Van Den Eynde, ―Missing Link,‖ 476. 44
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.2.3.1.3 God‟s Thoughts (cf. 2.3.2.1.1) Even more subtle than God‘s internal speech (8.21b-22) or mental observations (6.12) are God‘s non-articulated and allusively referenced thoughts. In Gen 8.1, ―God remembered Noah….‖ Calling to mind a person and/or circumstance signifies mental activity which, for God, invariably leads to action.135 In the case of the deluge, this is the point in time wherein God caused the reversal of the floodwaters‘ effects. 1.2.3.2 Noah 1.2.3.2.1 Noah‟s Personae (cf. 2.3.2.2.2)
After the (twdlwt)introduction of Noah there proceeds the largest—ten-word—description of the protagonist (Gen 6.9b); in fact, xanO is the first and tenth word thus forming a lexical envelope structure.136 Within this envelope there are two depictions of Noah. The first 137 designation of Noah is how he was wytrdb hyh Mymt qydc #y). Job was also one completely righteous (Mymt qydc; Job 12.4); further, Noah, Job and Daniel are lauded by 138 God, in Ezek 14.20, for their sterling righteousness (hqydc). The second descriptive of
Noah is xn-Klhth Myhl)h-t). This character datum is reminiscent of Enoch, for so too 139 Myhl)h-t) Kwnx Klhtyw (5.22a, 24a), albeit with differing results (5.24b). By comparison not many people are of the moral and ethical calibre as Noah in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. There are three other terse yet highly relevant reports regarding Noah‘s character in the immediate literary context. The first thing the reader learns of Noah, outside the Flood Narrative, is the aetiology of his appellation. Lamech ―called his name Noah, saying, ‗Out of
135 Brevard S. Childs, (Memory and Tradition in Israel [SBT, 37; Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenon, Inc. 1962], 34) explicates, ―God‘s remembering always implies his movement toward the object of his memory… The objective side of memory is accomplished, in differing degrees, by an internal reaction on God‘s part. The essence of God‘s remembering lies in his acting toward someone because of a previous commitment.‖ Michael V. Fox (―The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ‟ôt Etiologies,‖ RB 81 [1974]: 572), asserts that rkz ―often means more than just ‗remember‘ in the sense of mental recollection and is frequently best translated ‗maintain.‘‖ Cf. H. Eising, ―rkz,‖ TDOT 4:66-67. 136 J.M. Sasson (―Word-Play in Gen 6:8-9,‖ CBQ 37/2 [1975]: 165) comments, ―this sequence of ten words no doubt underscored the fact that Noah formed the tenth generation since creation.‖ 137 To be (completely) righteous in one‘s generation, as was Noah (cf. Gen 7.1), is a close position before God Almighty: ―for God is with the generation [rwdb] of the righteous [qydc]‖ (Ps 14.5b). Additionally, the ―expression borrows from Israel‘s priestly description of sacrificial animals that are free of blemishes, and emphasizes Noah‘s acceptance before God‖ (Arnold, Genesis, 98). 138 ―hqdc refers to a relationship between persons rather than to the relationship of an object to an idea. The most pertinent of these relationships was that between God and Israel. hqdc denotes the duties of each party arising out of the relationship.‖ (Harland, Value of Human Life, 46) 139 J.M. Sasson (―Word-Play,‖ 166) believes ―the writer, in addition to deriving pleasure from sandwiching his praises within the names ‗Noah,‘ could not miss the opportunity to drive home his comparison between his illustrious ancestors hiănôk and nōahi. He structured his wording such that the last three letters of his sentence were, read backwards, Hi-N-K.‖ 45
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
the ground which the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands‘‖ (5.29). The second datum concerning the protagonist is how ―[a]fter Noah was five hundred years old, Noah became the father of Shem, Ham, and Japheth‖ (Gen 5.29; cf. 6.10). The spatial marker of Noah‘s age becomes important when charting the timeline of events throughout the Flood Narrative (cf. 7.6, 11; see 1.2.4). Third, Nh )cm xnw 140 hwhy yny(b (6.8). Considering the nature of the foregoing narrative material (6.1-7) that Noah is fronted in the syntax of this sentence is poignant—Noah contrasts (comparatively) all aforementioned wickedness.141 Consequently, verses near the end of Gen 5 and near the beginning Gen 6 directly characterized Noah.142 1.2.3.2.2 Noah‟s Actions Although Noah does not speak throughout the Flood Narrative, his actions are indicators of his relationship with God and his response to the events which befall him.143 The overarching moral evaluation of Noah is that he is obedient to God. For example, when God discloses the forthcoming destruction of all living things of the earth/land God issues an imperative/ command regarding the construction of (h#(; Gen 6.14), an imperative/command concerning the supplies to take on-board (xq; Gen 6.21), and an imperative/command 144 145 denoting the loading of the ()b; Gen 7.2) —to which Noah is altogether obedient. Supplementary to his obedient action Noah undertakes two notable series of volitional actions. Noah‘s first set of volitional actions are the opening of the window (8.6), the sending of birds from the (8.7-12), and the ripping off of the roof/cover (8.13). These actions suggest Noah‘s emotional/psychological state to be that of curiosity and/or anticipation, or the like—Noah wants to know the status of the waters. The second series of actions Noah was compelled to undertake is everything comprised in offering sacrifices to God after disembarking for the (8.18; the exodus from was actually commanded but nothing further). Noah built an altar (√hnb, 8.20, as opposed to the which he ―made‖
140 Moses (Ex 33.17) and David (2 Sam 15.25) are other select company in the Hebrew Bible who find favour in God‘s eyes. 141 Van der Merwe and Talstra (―Biblical Hebrew Word Order,‖ 83) deduce, ―fronting establishes entities as the topics to be compared…or contrasted… In cases like these a topic frame for the subsequent clause is established.‖ 142 Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 74-77; Tolmie, Narratology, 42-44. 143 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 77: ―A person‘s nature is revealed by deeds; action is the implementation of character, and individuals are disclosed through their deeds no less than their words.‖ 144 These imperatives are the governing commands subsumed under which are several verbs indicating how to execute the governing imperative. Cf. Longacre ―Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: Affirmation and Restatement‖ in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew (ed. W.R. Bodine; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 185. 145 Cf. Robert W.E. Forrest, ―Paradise Lost Again: Violence and Obedience in the Flood Narrative,‖ JSOT 62/2 (1994): 10-12. 46
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
√h#(, 6.14; cf. 6.22) and immolated clean animals (8.20), since multiple pairs of those were brought on-board (7.2, 8).146 1.2.3.2.3 Noah‟s Psyche A faint glimpse into Noah‘s inner life147 is caught by means of the narrator‘s twofold 148 employment of the term hnh. The first instance is ―when the dove returned to him [i.e.
Noah] at evening—and hnh: a freshly plucked olive branch was in its bill‖ (8.11a; JJS). This is Noah‘s perception, thus the television camera, as it were, is not far off capturing this scene in profile; rather, with hnh the reader envisions the sight through Noah‘s eyes—the dove is flying straight toward him and he, Noah, focuses his sight on the piece of vegetation in its bill. This prospect leads Noah to cognitively discern ((dy) ―that the waters had subsided from the earth‖ (8.11b). The second vantage of Noah‘s psyche takes place after ―Noah removed the cover of the , and he looked—and hnh: the surface of the ground was dry‖ (8.13; JJS). The syntax in this verse pairs hnh with a verb of perception, h)r. Although the narratee/reader knows by this point that the waters have completely evaporated (8.13a), the narrator dramatically reiterates the same through Noah‘s viewpoint (8.13b)—it is here that the protagonist knows as much as his narratee/reader.149 Noah is thus a type character for he is one ―who has a limited and stereotyped range of traits, and who represents the class of people with these traits.‖150 Whereas Noah‘s persona was directly characterized, both Noah‘s psyche and actions indirectly characterized him.151 Nevertheless, Noah is ultimately portrayed as static character, a type for righteousness.152 1.2.3.3 Noah‟s Sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth Other than their patronymics next to nothing is known about Noah‘s offspring, until after the Flood (9.18-27). Noah‘s sons are mentioned by name a few times throughout the Flood Narrative (Gen 6.10; 7.13) and outside of the Deluge events (Gen 5.32; 9.18-29; 10.1ff. [1 Ch
146 Foreshadow of Noah as priest offering appropriate sacrifices has long been recognized. 147 This is terminology employed by Berlin (Poetics) and Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art) to connote a character‘s psychological status, particularly the identification of thought. 148 See Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 49. 149 Cf. Berlin, Poetics, 73-74. 150 Berlin, Poetics, 32. 151 Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 74-77; Tolmie, Narratology, 44-45. 152 Van Wolde (Words Become Worlds, 77) states Noah ―is not a hero, he is a docile and flat character‖ because he did not protest the forthcoming annihilation like Abram did (cf. also her ―Text-Semantic Study,‖ 24). Ska, (“Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives [Subsidia Biblica, 13; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1990], 86) seems to use protagonist and hero—which would portent to a (real) character development crescendo—interchangeably. Though a diachronic perspective, alternatively, Noah can be seen as hero (see 2.2). 47
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.4, 5]). Shem, Ham, and Japheth,153 however, are more frequently referred to as the sons of Noah (6.18; 7.7; 8.16, 18; 9.1, 8). Shem, Ham, and Japheth, in the Flood Narrative, are stock characters, functionally;154 for, they are those ―whom nothing is known except what is necessary for the plot…or part of the setting.‖155 If S. Bar-Efrat is right that ―minor characters play a structural role in literature, paralleling and highlighting the main ones, whether through correspondence or contrast‖ then Noah‘s sons (and all the women of his family for that matter) can be seen as reflecting Noah‘s obedience (and righteousness?). 156 1.2.3.4 Noah‟s Wife and His Sons‟ Wives The wives of Noah and his sons are never named,157 only referred to as women/wives 158 (h#)); notwithstanding, they are mentioned almost nearly as often as Noah‘s sons throughout the events of the Deluge (6.18; 7.7, 13; 8.16, 18).159 By bringing the gender/role to the fore, and hence only seen as agents, what is being highlighted is the whole family unit.160 Indeed, the mentioning of ―the women of Noah‘s family‖ when ―commanded to enter the ark (Gen 6,18b)‖ actually ―mirrors the idea of the ‗two of each, male and female‘ Noah has to take from the animals.‖161 1.2.3.5 The Animals (cf. 2.2.1.1.2) The animals are also characters in the Flood Narrative. It is the animals who—apparently by some instinct or the leading of God—approach Noah (6.20, they will come [w)by] to you to be kept alive; 7.9, they came [w)b] to Noah) to be loaded into and take safe-haven
153 Concerning the non-chronological arrangement of Noah‘s sons in the Flood Narrative and its significance, see Lénart J. de Regt, ―The Order of Participants in Clausal Elements in the Pentateuch and Earlier Prophets: Syntax, Convention or Rhetoric?‖ in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies (eds. L.J de Regt, J. de Waard, J.P. Fokkelman), 93-94. 154 Terminology varies amongst scholars: ―Agents‖ = Berlin (Poetics, 23, 32); ―Functionaries‖ = Ska (“Our Fathers”, 87); ―stock characters‖ = Powell (Narrative Criticism, 55). 155 Berlin, Poetics, 32. In the next story however, Gen 9.18-29, the character types change entirely. Ham becomes a full-fledged character (uncovering father‘s nakedness), Shem and Japheth becomes types of righteousness (covering father‘s nakedness), and Noah himself becomes a full-fledged character (a horticulturalist, becoming drunk). 156 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 86. 157 Of course, this is a common trait of the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Lot‘s wife). Named women, conversely, are so referred usually because of scandalous behaviours and action. The opposite is true here. 158 While Gen 7.2 features the word h#), meaning wife or woman, this is actually referring to female animals. See Textkritik where the emendation hbqn is proposed so to reserve h#) for female humans differentiating them from female animals. 159 Cf. L.J. de Regt, ―The Order of Participants,‖ 95. 160 See Sarah Schectman, Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis (HBM, 23; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2009), 135; Marla J. Schierling, ―Primeval Woman: A Yahwistic View of Woman in Genesis 1-11.9,‖ JTSA 42/1 (1983): 9; Arnold, Genesis, 102. 161 Van Den Eynde, ―Missing Link,‖ 475; cf. idem, ―Between Rainbow and Reform: A Gender Analysis of the Term tyrb in the Hebrew Bible,‖ ZAW 116/3 (2004): 411, 413. 48
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
therein (7.14-16); and it is the animals who correspondingly exit the after the floodwaters have evaporated (8.17-19). The animals are referred to by several terms as well as their delineation by specie. The 162 terms that are not specie classifications are inclusive also of humans, such as flesh (r#b), living creatures (Myyh xwr = 6.17; 7.15, 22), and existence (Mwqyh = 7.4, 23). Between these 163 terms and specie classifications is the general term hyx/yx which means living animal; at times hyx/yx appears to be used interchangeably with hmhb (e.g., 9.2, but cf. 8.1). The animal 164 species include cattle (hmhb), reptiles (#mr), and fowl (Pw(), with fish (gd) and insects
(Cr#) mentioned only once (9.2 and 7.21 respectively). While there is some consistency in the animal series (e.g., Pw(–#mr–hmhb [6.7, 14, 23]; #mr–hmhb–Pw( [6.20; 8.17]), there does not appear to be an overall pattern to the listings.165 The animal kingdom in the Flood Narrative could be described as walk-on characters, or a fauna crowd, who makes its entrance and exit largely imperceptibly.166 There are a few occasions nevertheless where certain animals are more conspicuous in the narrative than others. One example of types of animals featured more prominently are those considered clean (hrwh+h; 7.2, 8) in contrast to unclean animals (hrwh+ hnny)/)l; 7.2-3, 8). Besides these, the most downstage, as it were, that animals come in the story is when Noah sent forth the raven and dove from the —which are, in fact, an unclean and clean animal respectively. These birds, in light of their conspicuousness in Gen 8.6-12, are elevated to agents as opposed to characters merely consisting of the crowd.167 Whereas Noah‘s aim in sending the dove is explicit (see below), the purpose and function of the raven is less than explicit: ―and sent forth a raven‖ (8.7a).168 The contextual verbal syntax may throw light on the raven‘s mission.
162 BDB, 142; HALOT, 164. Occurrences include: Gen 6.(3,) 12, 13, 17, 19; 7.16, 21; 8.17; 9.4, 11, 15, 16, 17. Cf. A. Hulst, ―Kol basar in der priesterlichen Fluterzählung,‖ OTS 12 (1958): 28-68. 163 BDB, 312; HALOT, 307-309. Occurrences: Gen 6.19; 7.14, 21; 8.1, 17, 19, 21; 9.2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 16. 164 Animals series occurs in Gen 6.7, 20; 7.8, 14, 21, 23; 8.1, 17, 19; 9.2, 10. 165 Clark (―Animal Series,‖ 433-449) theorises that P lists a tripartite animal series throughout the Flood account harkens ―the three part mammal division which he introduced into the creation account‖ (440); additionally, ―P reinterprets the four categories as three and makes the original remaining category (reptiles) a sub-type of the mammal category‖ for reasons of cleanness (447). Concerning the other source, ―the J flood narrative, the members of the series are cattle, birds, and reptiles, although the order of the last two members varies‖ (442). Cf. McEvenue, Narrative Style, 190; Harland, Value of Human Life, 102-103; Hiebert, Yahwist‟s Landscape, 51. 166 Ska, “Our Fathers”, 87. 167 Ska (“Our Fathers”, 87) mentions how ―‗foils‘ appear only to enhance the qualities of other characters.‖ 168 The Hebrew has the definite article. See Bandstra, Genesis 1-11, 435; Snaith, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Genesis I-VIII [London: The Epworth Press, 1947), 51. 49
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Raven Waters
bwO#OwF )wOcyF (8.7) rwOshf K7wOlhf (8.5a) bwO#OwF K7wOlhf (8.3a)
In the cases of both the raven and the waters each subject is vouchsafed with dual verbal forms each of which take the infinitive absolute conjugation.169 Moreover, the finite verb of
Gen 8.3a, bw@#, harmonizes with the second infinitive absolute: bwO#OwF…w@b#Ouy@FwA; and likewise Gen
8.7 exhibits congruence between the finite verb and its infinitive: )cIiy@IiwF …)wOcyF (cf. Ezek 170 1.14). Concerning the waters specifically, K7wOlhf, the fronted of the Qal infinitive absolute couplets (8.3a, 5a), figuratively expresses the continuity of floodwater abatement;171 ―the 172 second infinitive strengthens the idea of continuity expressed by K7wOlh‖: receding (bw@#) and decreasing (rsx), respectively.
Regarding the raven, alternatively, the second infinitive describing its action (bwO#OwF) is identical to the abating waters‘ motion of 8.3a; moreover, bwO# of 8.7 comports to the initial abating waters‘ finite verb: w@b#Ouy@FwA (8.3b). Consequently, in R.W.L. Moberly‘s words, ―[t]his repeated idiom suggests a possible parallel between the movement of the receding waters and 173 the flight of the raven.‖ Presumably, then, the raven‘s to-and-fro flight pattern (bwO#OwF )wOcyF) mirrored the ebb-and-flow of the waters (bwO#OwF K7wOlhf) ―until the waters were dried up from the earth‖ (Gen 8.7).174 175 The dove also is the instrument of Noah‘s curiosity. Noah sent (xl#) the dove to see (h)r) whether the waters had diminished (llq) from the ground (hmd)); and in the end,
169 GKC (§113r-s), comments ―the infinitive absolute after the verb‖ is used ―sometimes to express the long continuance of an action…especially those cases in which a second infinitive absolute is co-ordinated with the first; the latter then expresses either an accompanying or antithetical action or the aim to which the principal action is directed.‖ In the instance of the raven (which features as one example of GKC) the function is accompanying action. Cf. Joüon-Muraoka (§123m) who describe the qatol coupling to ―express the simultaneousness or quasi-simultaneousness of a second action.‖ 170 GKC §113s n.2. This standard function of qatol (i.e. matching the leading finite verb) is not present in Gen 8.5. Joüon-Muraoka (§123s n.3) is tempted to amend w@yhf to read MyrIs;xo, in order for the qotel to mirror its governing verb. w@rIs;x;y@AwA does feature in the context, albeit distantly in Gen 8.3b. 171 Joüon-Muraoka §123s; cf. GKC §113u; R.J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §206; S.J.P.K. Riekert, ―The Struct Patterns of the Paronomastic and Co-ordinated Infinitives Absolute in Genesis,‖ JNSL 7 (1979): 78-79, 81-82. 172 Joüon-Muraoka §123s. 173 R.W.L. Moberly, ―Why Did Noah Send Out a Raven?,‖ VT 50/3 (2000): 350. 174 Henry Heras (―‗The Crow‘ of Noe,‖ CBQ 10/2 [1948]: 131-139) illuminates how the raven, or crow, was a nautical instrument for mariners: ―a direction finding crow (disākākam)‘‖ (134); hence, ―Noe restored to the usual way of ascertaining the direction of land: he sent forth ‗the crow‘ he had for that purpose, none of those which were kept in the ark by God‘s order‖ (138). Cf. Westermann (Genesis 1-11 [CC; trans. J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994], 446) and Gunkel (Genesis [trans. Mark E. Biddle; Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997], 64) who both quote H. Usener (Sintflutsagen, 254). 175 Why a dove? Doves were later used for burnt/sin offering (Lev 1.14; 5.7, 11; 12.6, 8; 14.22, 30-31; 15.14-15, 29-30)—this is apropos considering the Deity‘s reason for flooding the earth. Since doves were considered clean animals (Lev 1.14, et al.) and Noah loaded seven pairs of clean animals on board (Gen 7.2-3, 50
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Noah knew ((dy) that the waters had diminished (llq) from the land (Cr)) because he had sent (xl#) the dove (8.8, 11b-12). The dove‘s first return flight is an example of ―paratactic series of verbs‖ which ―unroll a rapid sequence of external actions.‖176 Noah stretched-out (his hand), took (it), brought-in (it to himself [in]to the ) (8.9b).177 In the second and third instance of the dove‘s flight it simply came-in (8.11a) and did not-again return (8.12). Though the threefold verbal series (…)byw hxqyw…xl#yw) in the first case may be conceptually subsumed in the single verb in the second case ()btw), it is intriguing that there exists a corresponding three word collocation concerning the yield (object) of the second return flight: hypb Pr+ tyz-hl( (8.11a). On the dove‘s third flight ―she did not return to him any more‖ (8.12b). 1.2.3.6 (cf. 1.2.6.4 & 2.3.2.1.3) Throughout the events of Gen 6-9* is viewed as the recipient of various indirect actions. First, the blueprint of is delineated and its construction is implemented (6.14- 20, 22). Second, is the means of indirect action when it is loaded with Noah and family, sets of animals, and foodstuffs (6.21; 7.1-3, 5). Third, both God and Noah direct physical 178 action upon it: God closes (rgs) the door of (6.17b) –Noah opens (xtp) the roof of (8.6b). Fourth, is affected by the flood waters: ―the waters increased and lifted the with the result that it floated above the land‖ (7.17b; JJS). Fifth, humans and animals disembark from (8.16-19). There are a couple moments in the narrative, conversely, when does feature as 179 the subject which derives its own direct action. The floats (√Klh; lit. ‗walks‘) on the 180 181 surface of the waters (7.18b) and it rests (√xaw@n) on the mounts of Ararat (8.4). Consequently, effectually borderlines a character in the Flood Narrative; indeed, as M.
8), Noah could have sent one female dove (note 3fs pronominal suffixes and verbal conjugations) or three (or reused one twice). The coo of a dove later became an idiom for sad moans (Isa 38.14; 59.11; Nah 2.7[8]) which in all likelihood was the pathos in the . hnwy is also the proper name Jonah; and Kruger sees a parallel here. ―A pigeon (hnwy), present in the ark, is sent out, and returns. Jonah (hnwy) goes down into the fold of the boat, is later cast out, but does not return‖ (―Subscripts To Creation,‖ 434). 176 Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 197. 177 Cf. Heimerdinger (Topic, Focus and Foreground, 78) on foregrounding in this verse. 178 The only other thing YHWH closes (√rgs) is the man‘s side having removed a rib (Gen 2.21). 179 Bandstra (Genesis 1-11, 411, 413) too views as ―Actor.‖ 180 Sarna (Genesis [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989], 55) notes, ―the vessel, having no steering gear, was entirely at the mercy of the floodwaters‖ (cf. 52). 181 Kruger (―Subscripts To Creation,‖ 439) proposes ―a subtle interaction is created between the ark which came to rest on the mountains of Ararat, posing as a ‗plug‘, and the subsequent abating of the waters.‖ 51
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Harl writes, ―La kibōtós [] de Noé est en quelque sorte ainsi traitée comme une personne, en tout cas comme un objet noble.‖182 1.2.4 Events The present narratological exegesis will be focused on the events of the Flood Narrative. However, since characters and actions are interdependent,183 the events already touched upon (e.g., the sending of birds episode, the building and loading of , etc.) will not be recapitulated here except by way of outline; rather, events not already elucidated (i.e., not intrinsic to a character‘s action) shall be discussed below. 1.2.4.1 Outline (cf. 2.2.1.1) Considering the above-mentioned event and characters‘ actions an outline of the Gen 6.5– 9.17 can now be sketched. (The ensuing outline contains roman numerals denoting act titles and letters which demarcated scenes therein, as in the style of a playwright.184) I. Antedeluvium (Gen 6.9–7.5) a. God‘s perception of man‘s evilness and the earth‘s corruption (6.5-12) b. God‘s plan revealed to Noah: destruction, , covenant (6.13-22) c. Noah‘s obedience and preparations (7.1-5) II. Diluvium (Gen 7.6–8.14) a. Floodwaters elevate (7.6-24) b. Floodwaters evaporate (8.1-14) III. Postdeluvium (Gen 8.15–9.17) a. Disembarkation: Commandment–Fulfilment (8.15-19) b. Noah‘s Sacrifice (8.20-22) c. God‘s Blessing (9.1-7) d. Covenant: Promise and Sign (9.8-17)
1.2.4.2 Plotline Plotlines are often schematized by some semblance of a pediment shape. In the story of the Flood the exposition ranges from Gen 6.9–7.5, the rising action includes Gen 7.6-24, the climax or turning point is Gen 8.1,185 the falling action encompasses Gen 8.2-22, and the resolution is Gen 9.1-17.186
182 Marguerite Harl, ―Le Nom de ‗L‘arche‘ de Noe dans La Septante: Les choix lexicaux des traducteurs alexandrins, indices d‘interpretations théologiques?‖ in ALECANDRIA: Hellénisme, judaïsme et christianisme à Alexandrie: Mélanges Claude Mondésert, S.J. (Paris: Cerf, 1987), 23. 183 Tolmie, Narratology, 41; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 77; Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 238. 184 Cf. Ska, “Our Fathers”, 33. We recognize the nomenclature antediluvian, diluvium, and postdiluvian are usually designated to refer to the timeframes before, during, and after the Flood, respectively. Nevertheless, these terms can all be applied throughout the life of Noah, since he experienced all three eras. 185 This maxim is what all the concentric literary structures indicate, except Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11.26 (NAC, 1; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holdman Publishers, 1996), 354 where he asserts Gen 7.17-24 is the climax. 186 Of course other terms could be wielded; e.g., Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 47) uses the nomenclature: exposition–complication–change–unraveling–ending. Also, more detailed grids can be proffered; e.g., Ska (“Our Fathers”, 20-21) prefers ―exposition, inciting moment, complication, climax, turning point, falling action, resolution, last delay, denouement (conclusion).‖ Walsh (Old Testament Narrative, 13-14) sees 52
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.2.4.3 Mwht(cf. 2.3.2.2.3)
The Mwht motif (along with its heavenly counterpart) is noteworthy in the discussion of the Deluge‘s events, since it is the source and mechanism of the floodwaters which so dominate the story. At the beginning of the rising-action part of the story, the springs of Mwht broke open ((qb), also the windows of the heavens opened (xtp) (7.11b); likewise, the turning- point, which begins the falling-action, starts when the springs of Mwht and the windows of the heavens were stopped up (rks) (8.2a).
wxtpn Mym#h tbr)w hbr Mwht tny(m-lk w(qbn 7.11b
Mym#h tbr)w Mwht tny(m wrksyw 8.2a
In short, Gen 8.2a is the exact reversal of Gen 7.11b.187 1.2.4.4 Floodwaters (cf. 2.3.2.2.3) In the course of the Deluge, the floodwaters188 elevate and they evaporate.189 These events are explicated by a substantial range of verbs, as charted below. Waters Elevating Waters Evaporating190 hyh (7.17) Kk# (8.1) hbr (7.17) bw# (8.3) rbg (7.18) bw# Klh (8.3) hbr (7.18) rsx (8.3) rbg (7.19) rsx Klh (8.5) hsk (7.19) brx (8.13) rbg (7.20) brx (8.13) hsk (7.20) rbg (7.24)
The first row (of the above graph) contains title verbs, in a manner of speaking, which signals (to the narratee/reader) the general action with more specific verbs following. Thus, when the waters came (hyh) it came abundantly (hbr) and mightily (rbg) with the result that it
plot formation such where the two ends (beginning and ending of an episode, scene, etc.) resemble positions of stability while the curvature is the destabilization and tension innate to a story. 187 Cf. John S. Kselman, ―A Note on Gen 7:11,‖ CBQ 35/4 (1973): 491-493; Samuel E. Loewenstamm, ―Die Wasser der biblischen Sintflut: ihr Hereinbrechen und ihr Verschwinden,‖ VT 34/2 (1984): 179-194. In this occasion, as well as in many others, there is a greater economy of words in the falling-action of the Flood Narrative than the rising-action segment. 188 By using the broad term ―floodwaters‖ we mean to include specific (lw@b@m%a) and general (MyIm@a) words alike. 189 McEvenue (Narrative Style, 35) states there are ―9 cola about the water‘s rise…and 10 cola about its recession….‖ Cf. Brodie, ―Genesis as Dialogue: Genesis‘ Twenty-Six Diptychs as a Key to Narrative Unity and Meaning‖ in Studies in the Book of Genesis (ed. A. Wénin), 302; Loewenstamm, ―Die Wasser,‖ 179-194. 190 #by in Gen 8.7 has not been included into the above graph since it does not actually report the waters drying up (like the other verbs), rather the text records how the crow flew to and fro until the time when the earth was completely dry (#by) in Gen 8.14. 53
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
191 covered (hsk) the mountains and earth/land. Accordingly, when the waters abated (Kk#) it did so by (continually) receding (bw# [Klh]) and (continuously) decreasing (rsx [Klh]) with 192 the result that it dried (brx). Ultimately the earth/land became very dry (#by, lit. ―withered‖; 8.14).193 1.2.5 Time Encompassing the issue of time are the concerns of charting calendric dates, a few day counts, and parsing out in the narrative time of narration and narrated time. 1.2.5.1 Dates and Days The most explicit measurements of time are dates, of which there are a couple throughout the Flood account. Most helpful are the complete dating systems, meaning the listing of day– month–year qualities. The year designations are according to Noah‘s age, and the days and months are straightforward. In one instance the year is explicitly assumed in the text (indicated below by italics) since it features in the very next verse/sentences, and is therefore included in the complete dating register.194 17.II.600 Flood Begins [7.11] 1.I.601 Waters Evaporated [8.13] (27.II.601 Earth/land Dry [8.14]) According to the terminus ad quo (17.II.600) and terminus ad quem (27.II.601) of the Deluge, the Genesis Flood lasted approximately one year and one month according to the lunar calendar, or one year according to the solar calendar.195 While the last two items in the above list are similar in depicting floodwater status, the emphasis is the date of the first of the two.196 The purpose of recording the 1.I.601 date seems to be to exploit the significance of
191 Note that rbg is penned in an every-other pattern, with hbr and hsk alternating in every second slot (A,B,A,B,C,B,C,B). Cf. Heimerdinger, Topic, Focus and Foreground, 253. 192 The pattern of verbs used in the waters evaporating segment is A,xA,B,xB,C,C. 193 ―On its own the language of v. 13 could indicate that the flood waters had gone and so it would be possible to disembark directly. But the juxtaposition of hrb in v. 13 with ybs in v. 14 clearly indicates a distinction—presumably between a muddy, boggy mess and firm, hard ground—in which ybs is the term for the complete disappearance of the flood waters from the earth‖ (Moberly, ―Raven,‖ 351). 194 Cf. Wenham‘s fuller reconstruction based on all the day references (Genesis 1-15, 180; idem, ―Coherence,‖ 343). See also Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 50-51, esp. n.90. 195 Morgenstern, Genesis, 82. ―According to Jubilees, however, the Flood lasted exactly one year. Both the beginning and the end of the Flood took place on the seventeenth day of the second month (see Jub 5:32, 31b). According to the Septuagint (LXX), too, the Flood lasted exactly one year. However, according to the Greek translator the Flood began and ended not on the seventeenth of the second month, but on the twenty- seventh of that month‖ (J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten, ―The Interpretation of the Flood Story in the Book of Jubilees,‖ in Interpretations of the Flood [TBN, 1; eds. F.G. Martínez and G.P. Luttikhuizen; Leiden: Brill, 1999], 68). 196 How these dates accord, or rather discord, with the rainy and dry season in Palestine, cf. Julian Morgenstern, ―Additional Notes on ‗The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel‘,‖ HUCA 3 (1926): 100-101. 54
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
New Year‘s Day,197 which has interpretive bearing on the calendrical records of Jubilees and Qumran texts198 as well as possible paralleling of the Creation account of Gen 1 (see 2.3).199 It has been shown that the record of charting days is of structural importance (1.1.1.3). It should be noted that when every day count is added and then compared to the calendrical dates these cannot be reconciled; this problem has been well-rehearsed.200 From a synchronic perspective, however, examination of the various timeframes will be developed. Several seven day intervals are recorded in the Flood narrative. Twice seven days are recorded before the Flood arrives (7.4, 10), and two times near the end of the flood (8.10, 12).201 The number seven, E. Otto states, ―transcends the merely concrete notion of counting to include elements of completeness, energy, and fullness, thus leading special significance to the number and its derivations among the numerals in the OT.‖202 Is this typological meaning intended for the Flood Narrative; that after the completeness of many days the flood will come, and that after the completeness of many more days the flood will conclude?203 Another day count is forty; half the time there are forty days and nights (7.4, 12) and the other half of the occurrences there are just forty days (7.17; 8.6).204 R.W.L. Moberly has addressed ―the fact that ‗forty days/years‘ is the Hebrew idiom for an indefinite, long period of time means that this is not the same kind of chronology as the specific count of months and days. Rather the ‗forty‘ is a different kind of notion, a generalizing statement—‗a long time‘.‖205 Yet, what can be the determinant of whether the idiomatic or literal meaning is used in the Flood Narrative, genre (see 2.2)?
197 Morgenstern, ―‗Three Calendars‘,‖ 77-79; Guillaume, Land and Calendar, 70-73. 198 A. Jaubert, ―Le Calendrier Des Jubilés et de La Secte de Qumrân: Ses Origines Bibliques,‖ VT 3/3 (1953): 250-264; idem, ―Le Calendrier Des Jubilés et Les Jours Liturgiques De La Semaine,‖ VT 7/1 (1957): 35- 61; Morgenstern, ―The Calendar of the Book of Jubilees, Its Origin and Its Character,‖ VT 5/1 (1955): 34-76; Ernst Kutsch, ―Der Kalendar Des Jubiläenbuches und Das Alte und Das Neue Testament,‖ VT 11/1 (1961): 39- 41; Timothy H. Lim, ―The Chronology of the Flood Story in a Qumran Text (4Q252),‖ JJS 43/2 (1992): 288- 298, esp. 296. 199 Gerhard Larsson, ―Chronological Parallels Between the Creation and the Flood,‖ VT 27/4 (1977): 490-492. 200 E.g., Lemche, ―Chronology,‖ 52-62; Barré, ―Riddle,‖ 3-20. 201 Whereas the first set is referring to the same timeframe (recorded twice for symmetry), the second set of seven days are actually periods. 202 ―(ba#Oe,‖ TDOT 14:351. Cf. HALOT, 1400: (ba#Oe II is defined as ―abundance, plenty;‖ and the (ba#Oe III entry is ―abundance, perfection.‖ 203 Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue, 171: ―Incidentally, the repeated use of seven…is in continuity with the triple use of seven in previous texts (2:2-3; 4:24; 5:31). The triple seven seems linked to the rest—or its direct contradiction, vengefulness (contrast 4:24 and 5:28-31). The sacrifice, too, ends in a variation on this idea of rest: ‗As long as all the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest…day and night, shall not cease/rest‘ (šābat, 8:22).‖ 204 I.e., not taking the emendation proposed in 7.17 of adding ―40 nights.‖ 205 Moberly, The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 105. Moberly deduces also that the number 40 ―can belong within one chronology‖ alongside the other numbers and calendar dating—it is not a conflict. 55
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
One hundred fifty, the last number, is twice recorded (7.24; 8.3). Because this is a rarely attested number206 it is uncertain whether this too has typological or hyperbolic portent. H. Gunkel suggests 150 days ―may be a customary imprecise designation for five months.‖207 1.2.5.2 Time of Narration and Narrated Time The distinction between time of narration and narrated time has been a notable distinction in narratological scholarship.208 J.-L. Ska specifies that the former (erzählte Zeit) refers to ―the duration of the actions and events in the ‗story‘…measured in units of ‗real‘ time (seconds, minutes, hours, days, months, years, centuries, millenaries...);‖ the latter (Erzählzeit) is ―the material time necessary to tell (or peruse) the ‗discourse‘ (concrete narrative)…the ‗duration‘ is the length of the narrative and is measured in words, sentences, lines, verses, paragraphs, pages, chapters….‖209 D.F. Tolmie utilizes the more distinctive nomenclature text-time, ―the length of time devoted to the narration of this event in the narrative text,‖ and story-time, ―the length of time an event actually took to occur,‖ to distinguish the same principles.210 We shall use the same vocabulary. In order to parse out the differentiation between time of narration and narrated time in the Flood account, the following graph is advanced.211 In addition to the text-time and story- time of the second and third columns,212 the first column lists every paraphrased event of Genesis 6.5–9.17,213 and the fourth column explicates the technique by which the events are recorded.214 Each of these graph facets will be interpreted below. Paraphrased Events Text-Time Story-Time Technique 1 God cognizes mankind‘s thorough evilness 2 lines Second Slowdown 2 God decides to wipe out man and animals 2 lines Seconds Slowdown 3 Introduction of Noah 2.5 lines - Pause 4 Earth/land corrupted in God‘s sight 2 lines Second Slowdown 5 God announces destruction of all flesh 1.5 lines Seconds Scene
206 All other occurrences of 150 are 1 Kgs 10.29; 1 Chron 8.40; 2 Chron 1.17; Ezra 8.3; Neh 5.17. 207 Genesis, 147; similarly Sarna, Genesis, 56. 208 It appears scholars refer to ―time of narration‖ and ―narrated time‖ differently. E. Otto apparently views the terms in question as having synchronic and diachronic implications; for he comments, ―a given text functions on two levels—namely, at the time of narration, that is, at the time when the text was written down, and the narrated time, that is, in the Pentateuch, the time of Moses (―A Hidden Truth Behind the Test or the Truth of the Text: At a Turning Point in Biblical Scholarship Two Hundred Years After de Wette‘s Dissertatio Critico-Exegetica‖ in South African Perspectives [eds. J. le Roux and E. Otto], 25); so Groenewald, ―Changing Paradigms,‖ 122. Others implement both terminological concepts in the synchronical lens alone; so Tolmie, Narratology, 13-14; Ska, “Our Fathers”, 7-8; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 141-143. 209 Ska, “Our Fathers”, 7-8. 210 Tolmie, Narratology, 13-14, 93. 211 Graph modelled after Tolmie, Narratology, 94. 212 When text-time is measured by lines, BHS is the operative text. 213 Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 93: ―The smallest narrative unit is the one which contains once incident, whether an action or an event. An action occurs when the character is the subject…of the incident, and an event occurs when the character is the object.‖ 214 See Tolmie, Narratology, 93-94. 56
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
6 God commissions Noah to build 4.5 lines Minute(s) Scene according to his specifications 7 God announces forthcoming flood 2 lines Seconds Scene 8 God foretells a covenant 4 words Seconds Scene 9 God lists all living creatures to occupy 4 lines Seconds Scene 10 God instructs loading of foodstuffs on 1 lines Seconds Scene 11 Report of Noah‘s obedience 9 words - Summary 12 Noah‘s obedience / his construction of - Century Ellipsis 13 God commands Noah to enter 1.5 lines Seconds Scene 14 God instructs the loading of prescribed 3 lines Minute Scene amounts of clean and unclean animals 15 God announces how rain will come in 7 days 2 lines Seconds Scene for 40 days to wipe out all existence 16 Report of Noah‘s obedience 6 words - Summary 17 Noah was 600 when the flood came 10 words - Pause 18 Noah et al. enter 4 lines Hours? Summary 19 Flood comes 8 words Hours? Summary 20 Noah was 600 when the flood came 1 line - Pause 21 The abyss bursts and the heavens open 1 line Seconds Slowdown 22 Rain falls for 40 days and 40 nights 8 words 40 days Summary 23 Noah et al. had entered the same day 6.5 lines Hours? Summary 24 God (had) shut the door of 3 words Seconds Scene 25 The floodwaters fell for 40 days 6 words 40 days Summary 26 Waters increased lifting off the ground 8 words Hour? Summary 27 Waters increased making float 1 line Hour? Summary 28 Waters increased covering mountaintops 2 lines Hours Summary 29 Every living thing outside dies via flood 5 lines Hour? Summary 30 Flood waters prevail over earth/land 150 days 7 words 150 days Summary 31 God remembers Noah et al. 1 line Second Pause 32 Wind of God causes waters to abate 7 words Months Summary 33 The abyss and the heavens close 1 line Seconds Slowdown 34 The floodwaters decrease for 150 days 2 lines 150 days Summary 35 comes to rest on Mt Ararat 1 line Minute Scene 36 Waters decrease until mountain are visible 1 line 2.5 months Summary 37 End of 40 days came 4 words - Pause 38 Noah opened the window of 7 words Minute(s) Scene 39 Noah sent a raven 3 words Minute Scene 40 Raven flew to-and-fro until the land was dry 8 words Weeks Summary 41 Noah sent a dove to see if waters diminished 1 line Minute Scene 42 Dove could not find resting place and returned 1.5 lines Hours-Day? Summary 43 Noah received the dove back into the 8 words Minute Scene 44 Noah waited seven days 5 words 7 days Summary 45 Noah sent the dove again 6 words Minute Scene 46 Dove flies around until she finds vegetation - Hours-Day? Ellipsis 47 The dove returned with vegetation in its bill 10 words Minute Scene 48 Noah knows waters have diminished 7 words Second Slowdown 49 Noah waits seven days 5 words 7 days Summary 50 Noah sends dove 3 words Minute Scene 51 The dove does not return 5 words Day(s) Summary 52 On 1.1.601 the waters had totally evaporated 1 line - Pause 53 Noah removes roof of 5 words Hour? Summary 54 Noah sees dry ground 5 words Second Scene 55 On 27.2.601 the ground was completely dry 1 line - Pause 56 God commands Noah et al. to disembark 3 lines Seconds Scene 57 Noah et al. Disembarks from 2 lines Hours? Summary 58 Noah builds an altar to God 4 words Hour? Summary 59 Noah offered sacrifices on the altar 1 line Hour? Summary 60 God smelled the offering 5 words Second Scene
57
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
61 God thought: never again will I destroy the 4 lines Seconds Scene earth/land because of mankind 62 God blesses Noah and sons, issues commands 10 lines Seconds Scene 63 God establishes covenant with Noah et al. to 5 lines Minutes Scene never destroy the world via flood again 64 God gives the covenantal sign: the bow 8 lines Minutes Scene
Several points of this graph need annotation. (1) Each row in the column of paraphrased events is meant to be the singular narrative unit; however, there are items which could be further subdivided (e.g., row 41 has three verbs, i.e., three events [extended-out {hand}… took-her…brought-in{her}]), albeit such tedious mincing has been avoided. (2) In addition to the incremental story-time items, larger time references are supplied in the narrative; so for example, narrative units 17-55 take place over one year and one month (cf. 7.11 & 8.13-14; see also 1.2.4.1). (3) In many instances in the story-time column a time reference is made followed by a question mark; these question marks represent uncertainty regarding the time it took for an event to be performed or caused, and hence are approximations (e.g., row 58: how long would it have taken Noah to build an altar; how large or small was it, how crude or complex, etc.?). Henceforth, issues of frequency, order, and tempo shall be discussed. 1.2.5.2.1 Frequency Though repetition has been expounded previously (1.1.3.2), in the perspective of the above diagram, with its linearly arranged events, there are only a few points of repetition. Rows 15- 21 (cf. 1.1.3.1 F-J) essentially restate the beginning of the flood twice: Noah was 600 years old when the flood started (row 17 and 20); indeed the flood came (row 19 and 20); Noah et al. had entered the by the commencement of the deluge (rows 18 and 23). In this example of repetitive frequency215 it seems the transcribing technique was utilized to emphasize just how close it was when the deluge transpired after the was loaded— immediately so. 1.2.5.2.2 Order The contents of the Flood Narrative are laid out in a fairly chronological manner yet with a few exceptions. The aforementioned repetition can be seen as a case of prolepsis, where the advent of the Flood in Gen 7.6-10 (rows 17-19) is narrated before said actual events in Gen 7.11-16a (rows 20-23); also, an anachronism via analepsis is found when the door of the
215 Tolmie (Narratology, 100) highlights three types of frequency: singulative (occurrence to recording is a 1:1 ratio), repetitive (recording more than once a single occurrence [1:>1]), and iterative frequency (multiple occurrence recorded once [>1:1]). 58
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
is closed by God (7.16b; row 24) after the abyss and heavens were said to burst forth their waters (7.11b; row 21) and after the forty days of rain started (7.12; row 22).216 1.2.5.2.3 Tempo In the fourth column of the above graph the transmission technique has been noted. What is achieved by the narrator through the total arrangement of techniques of the writing of events is an overall text tempo.217 Several methods of communicating duration have been employed in the Flood Narrative: pause, slowdown, scene, summary, and ellipsis.218 The scene, or scenic representation, is an event that is basically balanced between text-time and story-time. Conversation is the closest means by which these times are synchronized, since every word spoken is written.219 God conversing with Noah is found in rows 5-10, 13-15, 61-64 (Gen 6.13-21; 7.1-4; 9.1-17). Scenes other than conversation are quick actions more or less identical to text-time; examples include: God shutting the door (7.16b; row 24), Noah opening the window (8.6; row 38), Noah releasing birds (8.7, 8, 10, 12; rows 39, 41, 45, 50), etc. The summarization of events is naturally shorter than a detailed account of a happening. Since the duration of the Flood account is approximately 101 years, it comes as no surprise that most of the narrative is delivered through summary (27 of 64 rows)—a quickening of overall tempo. A slowdown in textual conveyance is inverse to summary in that the description of a particular event is longer than the actual event. For example, the opening of the abyss and windows of heaven would likely have taken a moment, however it takes the narrator a whole line (in BHS) to communicate it (row 21); likewise, it takes one line to describe the closure of these two portals though it likely happened instantaneously (row 33). Another example of slowdown is when the dove makes its second round-trip. Seven words are written to describe Noah‘s realization that the waters had diminished to the point where treetops were visible, although this would have been an instant mental computation whereupon seeing the bird clenching an olive branch in its bill (row 48).
216 On prolepsis and analepsis see Powell, Narrative Criticism, 37; Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 111-112; Tolmie, Narratology, 88-89; Ska, “Our Fathers”, 8-9; Long, ―Framing Repetitions,‖ 389. As has been posited above (1.1.1.2), the advent of the flood is recorded and retold thrice, each time adding more scope and detail. If the datum of the closure of ‘s door is intended to be part of the fourth unit of forward-parallel symmetry (7.11-17a; and after the summary-obedience formulae, 7.16aβ), then it is anachronistic; but, if the door datum is intended to precede the fifth unit of forward-parallel symmetry (7.17b- 24), then it is not anachronistic. 217 What we call ―tempo‖ (so, Walsh) others may term ―duration‖ (Tolmie) or ―speed‖ (Bar-Efrat). 218 Tolmie, Narratology, 94; Ska, “Our Fathers”, 12. 219 Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 148; Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 56. 59
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
An ellipsis, or gap, is ―a lack of information about the world…an event, motive, causal link, character trait, plot structure…contrived by a temporal displacement.‖220 Since the contents of the ellipsis is by virtue absent from the narrative text the (non) text-time is immanently slower that the story-time.221 One glaring ellipsis in the story is what takes place between 6.21 and 6.22 (row 12)—Noah‘s actual (versus reported) construction of the . This ellipses is a gap of approximately a century, for Noah was 500 years old before God spoke to him (5.32) and was 600 years old when the flood started (7.6, 11; cf. 9.28-29). Lastly, the inverse of ellipsis is a pause in the narrative; here the tempo of the story- time is infinitely slower than the text-time. Since pausal information does not belong to the story proper but is actually exterior, collaborative information and/or superimposed alien data (so to speak), this data has been marked by a dash (-) in the story-time column of the above graph indicating void of time in the actual story. Most of the pausal elements in Gen 6-9* are reports of dates, the passage of calendric time, and the like (rows 17, 20, 37, 52, 55).222 Another occasion wherein narrative pause is applied is when giving background information (e.g. 6.8-10, row 4). A pause is felt before the Flood Narrative is fully underway by the disclosing of the protagonist‘s character traits and family lineage (6.8-10; row 3); also there is a pause when God remembers Noah at the climax of the Flood (8.1a; row 31). One purpose of retarding the tempo to a pause seems to be to give the reader time for reflection;223 pauses, at least in the Flood Narrative, are nestled immediately before new plot developments ensue. Therefore, through pause, slowdown, scene, summary, and ellipsis narrative tempo can be accelerated or retarded or even transcribed simultaneous to real-time. In general, the Flood Narrative moves fast (summary, ellipsis) with several concurrent perspectives (scene), and the occasional tarrying over provocative details (slowdown, pause).
220 Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 237; cf. Ska, “Our Fathers”, 8-9; Talstra, ―A Hierarchy of Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Narrative,‖ in Narrative Syntax [ed. E. van Wolde], 101). 221 Sternberg (Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 237) warns, ―[i]llegitimate gap-filling is one launched and sustained by the reader‘s subjective concerns (or dictated by more general preconceptions) rather than by the text‘s own norms and directives.‖ 222 Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 146) specifies that ―[t]ime stops in two situations: a. when interpretations, explanations, conclusions or evaluations are given by the narrator; b. when depictions are given within the narrative.‖ 223 The ―‗freezing‘ of the action at any given moment reveals a crisscross of perspectival variations among the dramatis personae as well as between them and the other observers. In fact, however, such variations are anything but static. They so develop along the sequence of plot as to mark discrepancies even within a single figural viewpoint as it moves from the beginning to end: its progress through time correlates with a progress in knowledge‖ (Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 176). 60
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.2.6 Setting By now some of the Flood‘s setting (or space) has been indirectly addressed by the exposition of the floodwaters (1.2.4.2) for example, yet a few features remain. These settings include (h)Cr), t#q, +rr) yrh, and the .
1.2.6.1 (h)Cr) (cf. 2.3.2.2.3) The terra firma is an obvious setting and not to be taken for granted in this story of the flood.
A few terms are used in Gen 6-9 to describe it. Cr) and hcr) are the most common descriptors, the former connotes ―earth‖ or ―land‖ while the latter means ―land‖ or 224 ―ground.‖ E. Van Wolde sees h/Cr) essentially personified in Gen 1-11 for ―the earth has not only a face [ynp], but once a mouth as well (4.11)‖; moreover, God ―act[s] on behalf of the earth…shar[ing] from time to time the earth‘s perspective,‖ as in the story of the Flood.225 Hitherto this point the general designation earth/land has been used to encompass
Cr) and hcr) as well as to averted any specific terminology which might denote one or another position in the popular debate concerning the flood‘s scope, whether it was universal/global (earth) or local/territorial (land). It is not the purpose of this chapter to deliberate such matters, since, in the end, ―there is general agreement that the…flood narrative…do[es] not depict historical events.‖226 Similarly, matters pertaining to scientific, geological, ecological, or any other such inquiries portending to the historicity of the Flood are outside the synchronic and diachronic exegesis scope of Gen 6.5–9.17.227
A third term to describe the terra firma is used once, hbrx (7.22), meaning ―dry ground‖ in particular. This rare word occurs six times in the Primary History (Gen–Kgs) and is always used in these contexts to contrast water. For example, the seabed was hbrx when
Moses et al. crossed the Reed Sea (Ex 14.21), the riverbed was hbrx when Joshua et al. x2 crossed the Jordan River (Josh 3.17 ; 4.18), the creek-bed was hbrx for Elijah to cross at his
224 See Patrick D. Miller, Jr., Genesis 1-11: Studies in Structure & Theme (JSOTSup, 8; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978), 37-42. 225 ―Facing the Earth: Primaeval History in a New Perspective‖ in The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives (JSOTSup, 257; eds. P.R. Davies and D.J.A. Clines; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), 46. 226 Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 4. 227 For works of this nature see e.g.: Henry J. Morris and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., ―The Genesis Flood— Its Nature and Significance‖ (BS 117/466 [1960]: 204-213); idem, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and its Scientific Implications (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1961); Walter S. Olson, ―Has Science Dated the Biblical Flood?‖ (Zygon 2/3 [1967]: 272-278); Donald W. Patten, ―The Biblical Flood: A Geographical Perspective‖ (BS 128/509 [1971]: 36-49); Davis A. Young, Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977); Lloyd R. Bailey, ―Wood from ‗Mount Ararat‘: Noah‘s Ark?‖ (BA 40/4 [1977]: 137-146); Paul H. Seely, ―Noah‘s Flood: Its Date, Extent, and Divine Accommodation‖ (WTJ 66/2 [2004]: 291-311); etc. 61
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
translation (2 Kgs 2.8). In each of these co-texts hbrx is a miraculous phenomenon especially concerning its location—bodies of water. Similarly, for floodwaters to occupy so much hbrx domain, and consequently destroy every living creature outside of (7.22), is miraculous.
1.2.6.2 t#q
God‘s covenantal sign in Gen 9 is a t#q. The t#q, a rainbow, is a physical setting, yet it also has received a few typological interpretations.228 One figurative interpretation put forth by J. Wellhausen is that just as a warrior‘s/archer‘s bow is hung unstrung to signify a victorious defeat, so too God has triumphed over Mwht in a decisive power struggle and hangs his bow 229 in the clouds (cf. Hab 3.9). A second and more contemporary interpretation of the t#q
Nn(b is that it represents the reestablishment of the firmament compromised in the Flood. L.A. Turner asserts, ―the firmament was conceived to be a solid dome-like structure stretched over the earth, into which the heavenly bodies were set, and which supported and restrained the heavenly ocean,‖230 that is, the Wasserschlauchlager. This is a picture then of the two bodies of water constantly separated, as in the beginning (Gen 1).
1.2.6.3 +rr) yrh The most definitive geographical/topological reference is the summit whereupon the came to rest. Whereas mountains and their peaks were mentioned generally throughout the 231 course of the deluge, Gen 8.4b refers specifically to +rr) yrh. The mountains of Ararat are a range of mountains located in ―a district in Eastern Armenia‖ which is ―between Lake Van and Lake Urmia.‖232 The naming of a real mountain is intriguing, since myth, saga, legend, or the like is typically devoid of any such specific depictions of setting (see 2.2.2);233 one would expect to
228 See Paul J. Kissling, ―The Rainbow in Genesis 9:12-17: A Triple Entendre?,‖ SCJ 4 (2001): 249- 261. 229 Julius Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels I: Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Reimer, 1878), 352. Cf. Fox, ―Sign of the Covenant,‖ 573; Batto, ―The Covenant of Peace: a Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif,‖ CBQ 49/2 (1987): 195 n.25; Theodor Herzl Gaster, Myth, Legends, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol.1 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1981), 130-131. 230 Turner, ―The Rainbow as the Sign of the Covenant in Genesis IX 11-13,‖ VT 43/1 (1993): 120; cf. also E.F. Sutcliffe, ―The Clouds as Water Carriers in Hebrew Thought,‖ VT 3/1 (1953): 99-103; Von Rad, Genesis, 128. 231 The other occurrences of +rr) in the Hebrew Bible include 2 Kgs 19.37; Isa 37.38; Jer 51.27. Compare the variant spelling in the Genesis Apocryphon; see James C. VanderKam, ―The Textual Affinities of the Biblical Citations in the Genesis Apocryphon,‖ JBL 97/1 (1978): 48. 232 BDB, 76; cf. HALOT, 91. ―Apparently, the main idea for the biblical writer was that the ark came to rest on the world‘s highest mountains‖ (Brodie, Genesis as Dialogue, 174). See Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 442-444; Sarna, Genesis, 57. 233 Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 184) explains, ―legends and fables‖ are stories ―in which time and space are not mentioned at all or are not defined in any way.‖ 62
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
find real settings in real stories, and, similarly, little to no scenic features in legends, etc. So, what is intended with the Ararat referent? E.A. Speiser understands this datum to be preserved so as to indicate the locale from which the text was received, i.e. from (the peoples of) the northwest.234 T.H. Gaster postulates ―the reason why this region is chosen is that Armenia and the Caucasus were popularly believed to be the end of the earth.‖235 Both explanations have interpretive bearing. 1.2.6.4 (cf. 2.2.1.3) is the most predominate and constant setting in the Flood Narrative, persisting long before and after the floodwaters (in varying forms). Characters (animals and humans) occupy the inside of , and many actions are enacted vis-à-vis the within and without. Indeed, is the most vividly described space of the story. With the dimensions 300 cubits in length, 50 cubits in height, and 30 cubits in width (6.15), is fashioned after the parallelepiped shape.236 J. Blenkinsopp disclaims the ―dimensions (300 × 50 × 30) are, of course, fictive and presumably significant in some way no longer understood.‖237 This structure is horizontally divided into thirds, presumably equidistantly, thus rendering three decks (6.16b). There are several peculiar features and materials which further depict Noah‘s . 238 First, the timber used to fabricate is called rpegO (6.14aα). N.H. Sarna expounds: ―This otherwise unknown type almost certainly refers to a coniferous tree of great durability. Sanhedrin 108a and the Targums, as well as Radak, identify it with the cedar. May modern scholars prefer the cypress both because of a similarity in sound to the Hebrew and because it was widely used in shipbuilding in ancient times, due to its resistance to rot.‖239
234 Genesis (AB, 1; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007), 55; Cf. A. de Pury ―PG as Absolute Beginning‖ in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L‟Hexateuque et de L‟Ennéateuque‖ (BETL, 203; eds. T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007), 119; Arnold, Genesis, 104-105; Leonard W. King, Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition (London: Oxford University Press, 1918), 99-100. 235 Gaster, Myth, Legends, and Custom, 128-129. 236 Cassuto (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis; pt.2–From Noah to Abraham: Genesis VI9-XI32. [trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1964], 60) states: ―The original signification common to them all seems to have been: an object made in the shape of a parallelepiped, and this is precisely the primary meaning of the Hebrew word hbft@Ii tēbhā, which is used also today as a term for this geometrical form. Undoubtedly the Biblical narrative refers to such a structural shape and not to that of a ship.‖ Cf. Paul Haupt, ―The Ship of the Babylonian Noah‖ in Beiträge zur Allyriologie und Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (eds. F. Delitzch and P. Haupt. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs‘sche Buchhandlung, 1927), 4. 237 The Pentateuch, 80. 238 Cf. Cassuto, Genesis; pt.2, 62; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 173; et al. 239 Sarna, Genesis, 52; cf. Driver, The Book of Genesis (WC; London: Nethuen & Co., 1904), 87. R.J. Forbes (Studies in Ancient Technology, vol.1 [Leiden: Brill, 1955], 74) attests archeological excavated walls in Babylon that were ―strengthened with asphalted poplar-wood.‖ 63
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Second, Myn@iqi are to be made for the (6.14aβ). This hapax legomenon is problematic. Philo (Quaest. in Gen. ii 3) wants to duplicate this word in order to achieve the translation value ―many nests;‖ this would mean there are several cells throughout the vessel to, presumably, contain different groups of animals.240 Alternatively, it has been proposed to 241 emend the word to hneqf ―reed.‖ Indeed, reeds ―were used in ancient shipbuilding for filling the gaps and crevices and for tying together the trunks as well as for the purpose of giving the whole structure greater buoyancy.‖242 It seems to us that the latter interpretation is the correct one; for, if ―cells‖ were intended it would likely appear with the datum about the three decks (6.16b), being a further subdividing cell, but, as it is, it instead appears in the middle of the information of gopher wood and bitumen sealant—the very intermediate material needed to bring cohesion betwixt the two.243 244 245 246 Third, then, is the vessel‘s sealant: rpeko@, ―bitumen, asphalt‖ or ―pitch‖ (6.14b). Asphaltic bitumen is found in the Dead Sea of Palestine,247 and also originates from Babylonia, where its refining was probably first mastered.248 ―Even in prehistoric times bitumen was used as a water-proofing agent‖, R.J. Forbes surmises.249 N.H. Sarna indicates, ―[t]he unique Hebrew kofer in this sense is identical with Akkadian kupru, which was used by Utnapishtim and Atraḫasis to caulk their respective ships. The usual word for ‗pitch‘ is ḥemar, as in 11:13; 14:10 and Exodus 2:3.‖250
Fourth, there is the feature of the craft‘s rhaco (6.16aα). Lexically this noun means ―midday, noon‖;251 hence it comports to some semblance of a skylight.252 Just exactly how
240 Similarly, Cassuto (Genesis; pt.2, 62) maintains the ―Rabbis in Beresith Rabba xxxi 9, rightly translated, NyrIwOdm;w@ Nyliyqi…that is, ‗compartments and dwellings.‘‖ Contra J.F. Armstrong (―A Critical Note on Genesis VI 16aα,‖ VT 10/3 [1960]: 331) who proclaims, ―there is no mention of a sub-division of each story.‖ 241 Ullendorff, ―The Construction of Noah‘s Ark,‖ VT 4/1 (1954): 95-96; Armstrong, ―A Critical Note,‖ 331 (n.1). Contra Speiser (Genesis, 52): ―It is sometimes argued that Heb qinnīm should be repointed as qānīm to yield ‗reeds,‘ on the mistaken assumption that ‗reed hut—wall‘ in the pertinent Gilg. passage (Tablet XI, lines 21f.) shows the material that was used in the construction of the ark. The sense of that passage, however, is altogether different.‖ 242 Ullendorff, ―Construction,‖ 96. 243 Jacob, Genesis, 49. 244 HALOT, 331. 245 BDB, 498; HALOT, 495. 246 There is a word play between the noun‘s concomitant verb (rpk) and the gopher wood (rpg). 247 R.J. Forbes, Ancient Technology, vol.1, 27-30. Cf. also Philip C. Hammond, ―The Nabataean Bitumen Industry at the Dead Sea,‖ BA 22/2 (1959): 40-48. 248 Heidel, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels (2nd ed.; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1949), 266-267; Forbes, Ancient Technology, vol.1, 56-57. 249 Forbes, Ancient Technology, vol.1, 75 (italics his). 250 Sarna, Genesis, 52. 251 BDB, 843. 252 HALOT, 1009; Armstrong, ―A Critical Note,‖ 328. 64
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
this space that lets in light is situated in the is vague.253 The best judgment seems to be that between the top of the vertical walls and the bottom of the roof, or covering (see below), there is an open space encircling the of a cubit‘s length, probably for the purpose of ventilation. 254 Fifth, a xtape% ―door‖ (lit. ―opening,‖ ―entrance‖) was placed at the ‘s side (6.16aβ). This door appears to be the only point of entrance. It is eventually shut by YHWH himself (7.16b), as opposed to Noah (cf. Gilgamesh XI 93). Two additional features appear later in the narrative (nP), not included in the blueprint/construction speech of Gen 6.14-16 (P). Synchronically speaking, perhaps the reason why we read of additional configuration items only at the time when they come in use is because they were so obvious to the original audience that explications thereof at the outset 255 256 was unnecessary. Regardless, the first of these is a NwOl@xa, ―window‖ (8.6b). It is evident that this window was not positioned on the for the purpose of vantage;257 instead, the function of the birds was precisely because Noah could not see the waters. Thus the raven and dove are the only creatures that are granted access through this portal. 258 The second belatedly relayed feature of the is its hsIik;mi ―covering,‖ which is removed by Noah when the waters were discovered to be dried (8.13bα).259 So, this descriptive is to be taken as the roof; it is a term employed most frequently for the tabernacle.260 Thus, seven features are enumerated throughout the narrative.
253 Bandstra (Genesis 1-11, 366) surmises, ―If the antecedent is hbft@Iiha, then the clause may be suggesting that the wall of the ark will be solid until it gets within a cubit of the roof, leaving an opening for light and ventilation. If the antecedent is rhaco, then perhaps it is saying that the roof will overhang the top of the ark by one cubit, meaning it will have about a 1.5 foot overhang.‖ 254 BDB, 835; HALOT, 988. 255 For a diachronic explanation, see Jan Christian Gertz, ―Source Criticism in the Primeval History of Genesis: An Outdated Paradigm for the Study of the Pentateuch?‖ in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78; eds. T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 175-176; idem, ―The Formation of the Primeval History‖ in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation (VTS, 152; eds. C.A. Evans, J.N. Lohr, and D.L. Petersen; Leiden: Brill, 2012), 125. Further, it is intriguing that these two nP elements find counterpart with the Tabernacle, a primarily Priestly interest; see 2.4.2.1.3 below and also ch.6 2.2.1. 256 BDB, 319; HALOT, 318. 257 Armstrong, ―A Critical Note,‖ 330 (331): ―The window was not a permanent aperture, but had to be opened to permit access to the outside.‖ 258 BDB, 492; HALOT, 581. 259 Cf. Armstrong, ―A Critical Note,‖ 330-331: ―One is not entitled to infer that J never contained the directions for construction. The essential details were probably the same in J as in P, and the redactor simply used the latter‘s statement.‖ 260 Ex 26.14; 35.11; 36.19; 39.34; 40.19; Num 3.25; 4.8, 10, 11, 12, 25. 65
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.3 Summary In summation, through a synchronic perspective of the Flood Narrative, it can be asserted that Gen 6-9* is replete with artful composition through numerous displays of various structures, stylistic linguistics, and masterful literary characterisations. Concerning particularly, it was demonstrated that the vessel functioned not only as a setting which was involved in nearly every event of the Deluge, it also verges on a character in that it is the subject of a few actions. is the saving vehicle, the life preserving receptacle for both a representation of animal species and humankind in the course of the Deluge, and as such is a major focal point throughout the narrative.
2. Diachrony
Diachronic exegesis, as opposed to synchronic exegesis, is interested in the genesis of a piece of literature; and it seeks to dissect the tensions and repetitions of any given text in order to discover the origins and history, its authorship and redactions, and its stages of development and combinative assimilation.261 There is an interrelationship amongst all such diachronic methodologies. O.H. Steck intimates the diachronic connections thusly: Literary criticism, transmission history, and redaction criticism illuminate[s] the development of the text and/or they outline[] the text‘s formative arenas with respect to influential contexts. Also, they ma[k]e visible the process of the text‘s transmission to the point of its current version. Finally, form criticism, tradition history, and the historical setting…expose[] the components of the text in the text‘s own world in various aspects, whether articulated or unexpressed.262 Though our order varies, essentially these major moves are what ensue.
2.1 Literarkritik The tasks indicative of Literarkritik are [1] to set the textual limits of the Flood Narrative both the starting and ending point; [2] to determine the Narrative‘s unity and/or disunity (Einheitlichkeit–Uneinheitlichkeit) by identifying any tensions and repetitions (Spannungen– Wiederholungen) in the text, and if so to devise the various textual units accordingly; [3] to
261 Cf. Talstra, Solomon‟s Prayer, 83, 169, 261-265. Benjamin D. Sommer (―Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger,‖ VT 44/4 [1996]: 487) comments, ―the study of intertextuality is synchronic, the analysis of allusion diachronic or even historicist.‖ 262 Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 157. 66
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
identify the author(s)/source(s) of the textual unit(s);263 [4] to establish a Literargeschichte, arranging and ordering the textual units one to another.264 2.1.1 The Beginning and Ending of the Flood Narrative (cf. 1.1.2.1; 1.1.2.2 & 2.3.1.1) The Flood Narrative (of Gen 6-9*) appears to have two beginnings and two endings. The first beginning is Gen 6.1-8.265 The last verse of the preceding chapter (5.32) has concluded a genealogy account consisting of ten people from Adam to Noah,266 and then Noah‘s three sons are listed. Transgressing into the next chapter an entirely new topic regarding certain sons-of-(the)god(s) and daughters-of men and Nephilim is expounded;267 and this textual unit concludes with mention being made of Noah. Hence we have an overlay of eight verses, four of which serve as introduction to the Flood Narrative (6.5-8) and the other four are a preface to the Flood‘s introduction (6.1-4); both subunits function as elaboration for the catalyst of the deluge268—mankind‘s evilness.269 However, after Gen 6.8 the Deluge is not recounted; there is, in fact, a second introduction to the Flood: 6.9-12. Gen 6.5-8 and 6.9-12 are stylistically akin to each other (see 1.1.2.1). In the former the Lord takes note of mankind‘s thorough evilness and resolves to blot them out because of it, save Noah who is favoured by the Lord; in the latter, God looks upon the corruption of the earth via all flesh, hence determining to bring an end to them all, except Noah (and family) for he is completely righteous. These are corollary beginnings,
263 There is disagreement amongst scholars as to which stage in the diachronic exegesis authors/sources should be identified and elaborated, whether here in Literarkritik (Habel) or later in Kompositionkritik (Fohrer). We shall address the issue of authors (sources) at this juncture simply because textual units comprising particular verbiage are intrinsically affixed to the particular divine name used in it. Further, since the Flood Narrative is such a parade example of compositeness we practically cannot circumnavigate the labelling of sources. This will make subsequent diachronic exegetical methods, particularly Formen/Gattungskritik, a more precise and clear endeavour. 264 Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety: Perspectives on Multidimensional Exegesis (CBET, 19; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996), 102-104 (for steps 1-2, 4); Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (trans. S.M. Cupitt; New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1969), 70. 265 This unit can also be viewed as concluding material of the twdlwt of Adam; so J. Blenkinsopp, ―A Post-exilic lay source in Genesis 1-11‖ in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 315; eds. J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002), 55; Arnold, Genesis, 89. 266 See Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and History in the Biblical World (YNER, 7; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1977), 158-166. 267 Cf. Lyle Eslinger, ―A Contextual Identification of the bene ha‗elohim and benoth ha‗adam in Genesis 6:1-4,‖ JSOT 13/2 (1979): 65-73; Meredith G. Kline, ―Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4,‖ WTJ 24/2 (1967): 187-204; D.J.A. Clines, ―The Significance of the ‗Sons of God‘ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the ‗Primeval History‘ (Genesis 1-11),‖ JSOT 13/3 (1979): 33-46; D.L. Peterson, ―Genesis 6:1-4, Yahweh and the Organization of the Cosmos,‖ JSOT 13/3 (1979): 47-64; Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 63-74. 268 So Hendel, ―Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4,‖ JBL 106/1 (1987): 16 (22-23): ―…the story of the mingling of gods and mortals and the procreation of the demigods was originally connected to the flood narrative and functioned as its motivation.‖ 269 Gen 6.1-8 as two pericopes (6.1-4 & 6.5-8) is represented in the Masoretic paragraphing, p. 67
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
nevertheless there are two of them. The largest factor which circumvents Gen 6.5-12 as being 270 one unified, reiterated beginning is the employment of the term twdlwt in 6.9. * * *
Excursus: twOdlIiwOt@ 271 Derived from the root dly, twdlwt are structural demarcations which organizes peoples and events. In Gen 1-11 there are seven twdlwt; these give accounting for the origins and genealogies of the heavens and the earth (2.4), Adam (5.1), Noah (6.9), the sons of Noah (10.1, 31), Shem (11.10), and Terah (11.27).272 The preponderance of scholarship believe all twdlwt formulae, save Gen 2.4a, to be as superscription of an ensuing (series of) narrative(s) 273 and/or genealogical lists; alternatively, a minority maintains that the twdlwt formulae of
Gen 2.4 is not an anomaly in its posterior position, rather all twdlwt are to be understood in this subscription manner.274 At any rate, the toledotal narrative material dedicated to Noah‘s life is captured in Gen 6.9–9.29. Typical biblical genealogical data includes a particular patriarch, (occasionally) their age when they bore children, the names of all their children or at least the eldest, and then the age of said patriarch when deceased; next and subsequently, the same data is recorded of the eldest son of the previous patriarch. For Noah the first half of the above genealogical
270 ―This sentence serves as the rubric of the entire section of the Flood…‖ (Cassuto, Genesis; pt.2, 47). See T. David Anderson, ―Genealogical Prominence and the Structure of Genesis,‖ in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis (ed. R.D. Bergen), 242-266; Nicholas Andrew Bailey, ―Some Literary and Grammatical Aspects of Genealogies in Genesis‖ in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis (ed. R.D. Bergen), 267-284. 271 Schreiner, ―tdlwt,‖ TDOT 15: 582. 272 Blenkinsopp (The Pentateuch, 77) sees the first five twdlwt entries as a pentad with Noah and the deluge as the ―central panel,‖ and it is ―by far the longest and structurally the most significant.‖ 273 E.g., Reinhard G. Kratz (The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament [trans. John Bowden; New York: T&T Clark, 2005], 229) suggests Gen 2.4a is a ―signature‖ and all others are a ―heading.‖ ―It is natural for to begin afresh with a new point of departure. After each use of the feature, PG makes connections with the past to establish the context‖ (Schreiner, TDOT 15: 585). Contra Childs (Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture [Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1979], 145 [149]): ―under no circumstances‖ can the first toledot be ―treated as a subscription to 1.1–2.4a.‖ 274 Marten H.Woudstra (―The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance,‖ CTJ 5/2 [1970]), in promulgating B. Holwerda‘s position, espouses how ―the toledot must be regarded as colophons, written at the end of the section, not at the beginning‖ of a textual unit. This ultimus understanding comes from the Gen 2.4a problem; consequently, this leads Holwerda (and Külling after him) to view the origins/generations of the heavens and earth—as well as all other twdlwt—as conclusive and retrospective (187). For examples, in ―some of the earlier toledot, we notice that Gen 5:1, 2 begins with the creation of man and ends with God‘s repentance about ever having made man (6:6-8). The third toledot begins with Noah (6:9), and ends with the curse upon Ham (9:29). The fourth one begins with the survivors of the flood (10:1) and ends with the building of the tower and the confusion of tongues‖ (188). Cf. R. Rendtorff, ―L‘histoire biblique des origines (Gen 1-11) dans le contexte de la rédaction «sacerdotale » du Pentateuque‖ in Le Pentateuque en Question: les Origines et la Composition des Cinq Premiers Livres de la Bible à la Lumière des Recherches Récentes (eds. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and S. Amsler; trans. Samuel Amsler; Genève: Labor & Fides, 2002), 88-89; Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 78- 81. 68
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
information is given in 5.32+6.9-10 whilst the remainder of the genealogical information is found in 9.28-29;275 consequently, two narratives, the Flood (6.11–9.17) and the 276 viticulturalist (9.18-27), are sandwiched in between twdlwt formulae. There is debate as to whether the stories were in place first277 or the frameworks.278 However, it is altogether likely that one writer could have written both components (genealogy and narrative) linearly just so long as that writer started with half the genealogy formulae and then finished with the remaining genealogical information.279 * * * Similar to the dual beginning is the twofold conclusion to the Flood Narrative. A shorter ending is featured in Gen 8.20-22 and a longer ending in Gen 9.1-17. Gen 8.20-22 tells of Noah building an altar, sacrificing clean animals to the Lord who becomes soothed by its aroma; subsequently, the Lord conclusively resolves to never again destroy all living creatures because of (or despite) mankind‘s evilness, and to ordain the agricultural productivity of the ground. In Gen 9.1-17 God blesses Noah (and family) blessing them to multiply, prosper, and fill the earth. The animals (in addition to plants) may now be food for humanity. Moreover, a covenant is established by God, with a bow in the clouds being the covenantal sign, promising to never destroy the earth with a flood again. Fascinatingly, the first beginning (6.5-8) corresponds with the first ending (8.20-22); for, at the outset the Lord is disturbed by man‘s evilness, yet at the finish the Lord determines to not be influenced by man‘s evilness (see 1.2.2.1.2). Likewise, the second beginning (6.9- 12) correlates to the second ending (9.1-17); because, presumably, the destructive effects of the flood have ridded the earth of its corruption (6.9-13) thus enabling a new start with a
275 At the end of the Adam twdlwt in Gen 5 Noah figures in it with the genealogy branching with his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth (5.32); next, Noah begins a new twdlwt and his three sons are again listed (6.10). Likewise, at the end of the Shem twdlwt in Gen 11 Terah is listed and then the genealogy splits with three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran; next, Terah is the head of a new twdlwt with his three sons listed again (vv.26-27a). See Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 33, 61 (n.124). 276 Weimar (Studien zur Priesterschrift, 30) notes the ―Toledotformeln (Gen 6,9…[etc.]) folgt auf sie jeweils ein erzählerischer Rückgriff, womit innerhalb des Erzählablaufs ein literarischer Neuansatz angezeigt ist, dem immer auch eineVerengung des horizonts der Darstellung entsprict.‖ Cf. Blenkinsopp, ―Post-exilic lay source,‖ 53. 277 Schreiner (TDOT 15:583) proffers, twdlwt schemas ―were interpolated into the existing narrative complex during the final redaction of the Pentateuch.‖ 278 Duane A. Garrett (Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Bible [Great Britain: Mentor, 2000], 95) espouses ―[t]he original toledoth of Noah probably included notice of the names of his sons (6:10; 9:18-19), his age at the beginning (7:6) and end of the flood (9:28), and his age at death (9:29),‖ and later the flood narrative (6.11–9.27) was spliced into the record. So G.J. Wenham, ―The Priority of P,‖ VT 49/2 (1999): 243. 279 In short, since P takes authorial priority (see below), we maintain P did write (both parts of) the Noah genealogy and the flood within a short timeframe; later, nP interjected 9.18-27 (see 2.4). 69
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
righteous family (9.1, 7; cf. 1.28), also the foretold covenant to be established after the flood (6.17-18) indeed transpires (9.1-17). The associated beginnings and endings may be tabulated in the following way. Introduction 1: 6.5-8 Conclusion 1: 8.20-22 Evil inclinations in heart of men Evil inclinations in heart of men Deity sorrowful regarding men Deity tranquillised via a man Resolution to wipe out all made Resolution to not strike all made
Introduction 2: 6.9-22 Conclusion 2: 9.1-17 Construction of [13-16] Blessings [9.1-7] Purpose of [17-21] Covenant [9.8-17]
In the short units which are the first Introduction and Conclusion there is additional concentrated parallelism. The lexical affinities between 6.5-6 and 8.22 have already been demonstrated (1.2.2.1.2), as has the paronomasia of Mxnyw and xxynh (1.1.2.9.1). Beyond these is the parallel to destroy (√hxm in 6.7 vs. √hkn in 8.21) humanity which the Lord has made
(√(#) = 6.7b; 8.21b; cf. √)rb in 6.7a). As a result, there is a strong synthesis amid these texts. The second Introduction and Conclusion are more lengthy textual units which are largely, if not entirely, comprised of discourse. The speech portion of Introduction 2 starts with the formulae xnl Myhl) rm)yw in 6.13 and also possessing ynnh; and, while the speech formula is not restated, ynnh resumes a new, yet related, subsection of the Divine speech in 6.17 (see 1.1.2.4). In Conclusion 2 the entire unit is speech; a string of four words signals the speech in 9.1 and a six word formulae (each complete with subject and audience) begins the second subunit of discourse. Therefore, even with a twofold beginning and ending, the entire Flood Narrative is to be seen as ranging from the start of the first beginning, 6.5, to the finish of the second ending, 9.17. 2.1.2 The Einheitlichkeit and/or Uneinheitlichkeit of the Flood Narrative (cf. 1.1.1.3; 1.2.5.1) By virtue of possessing a repeated start and finish demonstrates the Flood Narrative to be a literary disunity (Uneinheitlichkeit).280 There are yet further dual repetitions of varying unit sizes within the body of narrative. For instance, there are two decisions to punish living things (6.5-7 + 6.11-13), two accounts of gathering and loading of animals and food (6.18b- 22 + 7.1-5); two accounts of entrance (7.6-9 + 7.13-16a); two reports of the flood‘s
280 For a detailed analysis see J.A. Emerton, ―An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis, Part I,‖ VT 37/4 (1987): 401-420; idem, ―An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis, Part II,‖ VT 38/1 (1988): 1-21. 70
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
commencement (7.10, 12 + 7.11); two reports of the flood‘s destruction (7.22-23 + 7.18-21, 24); twice is it mentioned how the floodwaters abated (8.2b-3a + 8.1-2a, 3b-5); twice is it described that the earth dried (8.13 + 8.14).281 Otherwise, datum that is only recorded once includes: the account of building the (6.14-17); the sending of birds (8.6-12); God‘s order to, and report of, disembarkation (8.15-19).282 Beyond superfluously repeated thematic components and phraseology, there are series of lexical tensions throughout. The foremost lexical tension is the usage of Divine appellations in the story: YHWH and Elohim. Chapters YHWH Elohim 6(.5ff) 4 5 7283 4 1 8 2 2 9(.1-17) - 6
Though the presentation of Divine monikers is, at this point, purely a lexical observation, it will be directly demonstrated that passages in which one or the other name is used correspond also to other specific and associated vocabulary.284
The Deity is called YHWH whenever there is mention of mankind‘s evil ((r = 6.5; x2 8.21), the act of wiping out (hxm = 6.7, 7.4, 23 [in toto Gen]), humanity (Md) = 6.5, 6, 7 ; x2 285 7.23; 8.21 ), ground (hmd) = [5.29; 6.1] 6.7; 7.4, 8, 23; 8.8, 13b, 21 [9.20] {except 6.20;
9.2}), clean and unclean animals (hrh+[h] = 7.2, 8; 8.20 [in toto Gen]), existence (Mwqyh = 286 x2 x2 7.7, 23), 40 days (7.4 , 12 , 17a; 8.6) of rain (#mg = 7.12; 8.2b [in toto Gen]), and the charting of seven day increments (7.4, 10; 8.10, 12). Alternatively, the Deity‘s designation is
Elohim when mention is made of covenant (tyrb = 6.18; 9.9, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17), x2 termination (√(wg = 6.17; 7.21 [in toto Gen]), corruption (√tx# = 6.11, 12 , 13, 17; 9.11, 15),
281 Cf. e.g., Carr, Reading the Fractures, 55-56; Propp, ―The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?,‖ VT 46/4 (1996): 460. 282 Carr (Reading the Fractures, 53) sees the birds as antenna events as a second impetus for exiting the in 8.6-12 (nP), the other being the explicit command by God in 8.15-17 (P). Whereas this is corollary thematically (especially from a source-critical vantage), there are still not, however, two actual exodus commands; thus each are single units (Einfache Einheite). Cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 167; Pauline A. Viviano, ―Source Criticism‖ in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Applications; revised and expanded (eds. S.L. McKenzie and S.R. Haynes; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 47. 283 See Textkritik for the emendation of the Divine name from Elohim to YHWH in 7.9. 284 Roland de Vaux (Bible et Orient [Cerf, 24; Paris: Boulevard Latour-Maubourg, 1967], 50) states, ―cette alternance des noms divins coïncide avec des variations de vocabulaire, de forme littéraire, d‘intention, de doctrine.‖ 285 Though also in (P) 7.21; 9.5x2, 6x2 286 The only other attestation is Deut 11.6 ―where it is also a question of the destruction of a whole (a clan)‖ (Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 429). 71
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
all flesh (r#b lk = Gen. 6.12, 13, 17; 7.21; 9.11, 15, 17), Mwht(7.11; 8.2a), and the mapping of 150 day increments (7.24; 8.3b). There are common or shared terms, then again, which seem to be a text unifying
(Einheitlichkeit) factor; for example, lwbm is penned four times in Elohim passages (6.17; x2 287 9.11 , 15) and four times in YHWH textual units (7.6, 7, 10, 17a), also hbt is well dispersed throughout the entire story.288 Through the diachronic examination of tensions and repetitions (Spannungen und Wiederholungen) and general disunity (Uneinheitlichkeit) of the Flood Narrative (Gen 6.5–9.17) is portentous of a composite text (Zusammengesetztheit des Textes) containing two literary strands which correspond to nomen. 2.1.3 Authorship of the Flood Narrative (cf. 1.1.1.1; 1.1.1.2) The two textual layers of Gen 6.5–9.17 can be parsed out thusly.289
nP 6.5-8 7.1-10,12 7.16b-17a 7.22-23 8.2b-3a 8.6-12,13b 8.20-22 P 6.9-22 7.11,13-16a 7.17b-21 7.24–8.2a 8.3b-5 8.13a,14-19 9.1-17
The Flood Narrative has long been a parade example of composite authorship. Indeed, there are two hands at work throughout Gen 6-9*: P(riestly) and what has been traditionally called J(ahwist). Notwithstanding, source criticism has evolved substantially over the last century.290 The source strata are becoming more splintered for some,291 and more compounded for others.292 In current, general estimation though, the Elohist is moribund293
287 Beyond the scope of Gen 6.5–9.17, though, lwbm is utilized in Gen 9.28; 10.1, 32; 11.10 which are all part of twdlwt formulae and therefore ―YHWH‖ textual units. 288 Carr, Reading the Fractures, 60. 289 The collection of textual units represented in the graph is our postulation, and made in concert with the following scholars: Hiebert (Yahwist‟s Landscape, 163-164); Carr (Reading the Fractures, 52-53); Guillaume (Land and Calendar, 193) Wenham (Genesis 1-15, 167), Von Rad (Genesis, 118, 125, 130), Speiser (Genesis, 47-50); Gunkel (Genesis, 60, 138,); Westermann (Genesis 1-11, 395-396); J. Rogerson (Genesis 1-11 [OTG; Sheffield: JSOT, 1991], 70-71). Cf. Richard M. Wright, Linguistic Evidence for the Pre-exilic Date of the Yahwistic Source (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 20; Viviano, ―Source Criticism,‖ 48; Ellis, The Yahwist, 228-229; McEvenue, Narrative Style, 189. 290 See Ernest Nicholson, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). See also David M. Carr, ―Controversy and Convergence in Recent Studies of the Formation of the Pentateuch,‖ RSR 23/1 (1997): 22-31. 291 Kratz (Composition, 249-250) states, ―the source hypothesis…has to be abandoned‖; instead, Kratz advocates ―a modified fragmentary and supplementary hypothesis is of much more use than a mechanical division of sources.‖ So Carr, Reading the Fractures. Cf. Cornelius B. Houk, ―Statistical Analysis of Genesis Sources,‖ JSOT 27/1 (2002): 75-105. Cf. also G.J. Wenham, ―Genesis: An Authorship Study and Current Pentateuchal Criticism,‖ JSOT 42/1 (1988) 3-18. 292 A block-composition model is promulgated by Rendtorff (Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch [BZAW, 17; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977]; idem, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch [trans. John J. Scullion; JSOTSup, 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990]), Erhard Blum (Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte [WMANT, 57; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984]; Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch [BZAW, 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990]), and, to an extent, Konrad Schmid (Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments [WMANT, 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999]; idem, 72
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
and the Yahwist has undergone demise,294 thus yielding a non-P stratum in lieu of the former two sigla.295 Also, P has grown younger than has initially been thought.296 Therefore, ―we are left, in fact, with three literary sources or documents, KD = J or non-P, KP = P, and D.‖297 Our stance is such that whereas P is a complete, independent written source,298 nP is not an independent source.299 Non-P is, rather, an editorial and redactional layer supplementing P.300 Consequently, P is earlier than nP.301 (See further 2.2 and 2.3.)
Genesis and the Moses Story). 293 Albert de Pury and Thomas Römer proclaim, ―il n‘y avait jamais eu de source « E » dans l‘Hexateuque‖ (―Le Pentateuque en question. Position du problème et brève histoire de la recherche‖ in Le Pentateuque en Question [eds. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and S. Amsler], 46) in articulating the position of Paul Volz and Wilhelm Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler. Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? An der Genesis erläutert (BZAW, 63; Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933). Hence the Elohist has «pratiquement disparu de la circulation» (Römer, ―La construction du Pentateuque, de l‘Hexateuque et de l‘Ennéateuque: Investigations préliminairs sur la formation des grands ensembles littéraires de la Bible hébraïque‖ in Les Dernières Rédactions‖ (eds. T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid), 16 (n.24); Römer, ―The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS, 34; eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2006), 9-28; Cf. Rendtorff, ―L‘histoire biblique des origines,‖ 84. Contra Robert K. Gnuse, ―Redefining the Elohist,‖ JBL 119/2 (2000): 201-220; Frank Zimmer, Der Elohist als wwisheitlich-prophetische Redaktionsschicht: Eine literarische und theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung der sogenannten elohistischen Texte im Pentateuch (Europӓische Hochschulschriften, 23; Theologie, 656; Frankfurt: Lang, 1999); Hans Walter Wolff (trans. Keith R. Crim), ―The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch,‖ Int 26/2 (1972): 158-173. 294 Rendtorff (trans. D.J.A. Clines), ―Pentateuchal Studies on the Move,‖ JSOT 3 (1977): 43; Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte, eds., Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW, 315; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002); H.H. Schmid, Der sogennante Jahwist (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976); A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation (SBLSymS, 34; eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2006); Cf. Rendtorff, ―L‘histoire biblique des origines,‖ 85; Ska, ―The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces. A Chapter in the History of Modern Exegesis‖ in Abschied vom Jahwisten (eds. J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte), 1-23. 295 Cf. Horst Seebass, ―Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de l‘Élohiste?‖ in Le Pentateuque en Question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes (eds. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and S. Amsler; trans. Albert de Pury; Genève: Labor & Fides, 2002), 199-214. 296 Wenham, ―Priority,‖ 240-258; David R. Hildebrand, ―A Summary of Recent Findings in Support of an Early Date for the So-called Priestly Material of the Pentateuch,‖ JETS 29/2 (1986): 129-138. 297 Van Seters, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 77. 298 So Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, esp. 20-26; Ska, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 3; Wenham, ―Priority,‖ 252; Guillaume, Land and Calendar; Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 48, 347; Koch, ―P-Kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung,‖ VT 37/4 (1987): 446-467, esp. 452; Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 78; Propp, ―Priestly Source,‖ 461-462; A. de Pury, ―PG as Absolute Beginning,‖ 105 (n.20); Norbert Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994), 145-146; Christophe Nihan, ―The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‗P‘‖ in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (eds. S. Shectman and J.S. Baden; AThANT, 95; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009), 91. Contra Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 301; Carr, Reading the Fractures, 47; Lutz Schrader, ―Kommentierende Redaktion im Noah-Sintflut-Komplex der Genesis,― ZAW 110/4 (1998): 489-502; et al. 299 So Ska, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 3, 20; Wenham, ―Priority,‖ 252; Blenkinsopp, ―Post-exilic lay source,‖ 49, 53. Contra Hiebert, Yahwist‟s Landscape; Hans Walter Wolff (trans. Wilbur A. Benware), ―The Kerygma of the Yahwist,‖ Int 22/2 (1966): 132; R.S. Hendel, ―Is the ‗J‘ Primeval Narrative an Independent 73
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.1.4 The Literargeschichte of the Flood Narrative The row with the siglum P (2.1.3 above) is a single unit (Einfache Einheite), for it is a continuous unified narrative (see further 2.3)—indeed, the story‘s basic layer (Grundschicht). It is comprised of the following constituent parts: the catalytic predicament of the deluge and the construction of and its loading (6.9-22), the advent of the flood (7.11,13-16a), its destruction (7.17b-21) and subsidence (7.24–8.2a; 8.3b-5), the disembarkation of (8.13a,14-19) and the blessing/covenant events (9.1-17). Another source/compositor, nP, has contributed a literary stratum; that material is an aggregate of extensions unit (Erweiterte Einheite): [A] 6.5-8; [B] 7.1-10,12; [C] 8.6-12,13b; [D] 8.20-22 and extensions (Erweiterungen): [E] 7.16b-17a; [F] 7.22-23; [G] 8.2b-3a (see further 2.4).
2.2 Formen/Gattungenkritik Though Formenkritik and Gattungenkritik are similar in goal and expression they are not synonymous.302 Formenkritik will be the first enterprise and secondly Gattungenkritik. 2.2.1 Formenkritik Form criticism will comprise the following exegesis: [1] the delineation of the structure of P and nP strand material; [2] the comparison of analogous P and nP forms in the Hebrew Bible; [3] comparative analysis between ancient Near Eastern flood narratives and the P and nP strata; [4] reconstruction the Flood Narrative‘s Formengeschichte.303
Composition? A Critique of Crüsemann‘s ‗Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeshichte‘‖ in The Pentateuch (eds. T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz), 181-205. 300 A. de Pury (―PG as Absolute Beginning,‖ 114): ―To take an obvious example, the author of the non- P version of the flood—who should be regarded, rather, as the post-P annotator of Pg‘s flood story‖; Ska (Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 20): ―The ‗J‘ story in Gen 6–9 turns out to be…more a series of late fragments than an independent story, complete and older than the Priestly Writer.‖ So also Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch, 78, 80, 84; Wenham, Genesis 1-15, xli-xlii; Kratz, Composition, 258. Contra Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 303): ―The Flood story has been completely rewritten by P.‖; Van Seters (The Pentateuch, 84): ―the preponderance of evidence points to P‘s dependence upon, and supplementation of, J.‖; Carr (Reading the Fractures, 61): ―The extra material in the P account suggests that it is an expansion of a framework found in non-P.‖ Cf. also Lutz Schrader, ―Kommentierende Redaktion,‖ 489-502. In response Joel S. Baden (J,E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch [FAT, 68; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009], 202) says, ―there is nothing in the P Flood story that can be singled out as a direct response to the narrative of J. …a later document must have been aware of its predecessors, and written with the purpose of updating them according to the new religious concepts embodied in the new document.‖ 301 So Ska, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 20; Wenham, ―Priority,‖ 240-258; Guillaume, Land and Calendar, 5; Blenkinsopp, ―Post-exilic lay source,‖ 49. Contra Menahem Haran, ―Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source,‖ JBL 100/3 (1981): 321-333; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 323-325; McEvenue, Narrative Style, 24- 26; J.G. Vink, The Date and Origin of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament (OTS, 15; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1969) 1-144. 302 A point bemoaned by scholars; see e.g., W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissen, 74, 132. 303 Tucker, Form Criticism of the Old Testament (GBS; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1971), 10-17; Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, 106-107. Cf. M.J. Buss (The Changing Shape of Form Criticism: A Relational Approach [HBM, 18; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2010], 133) who defines form criticism ―as a 74
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.2.1.1 The Structure of the Flood Narrative (cf. 1.2.4.1) 2.2.1.1.1 The Form of P Material (cf. 1.2.3.1.1) In gauging the contour of the Priestly text‘s composition (in its original form before expansion), the following structure (Formen) emerges.
Superscription: The twdlwt of Noah [6.9a] I. Introduction a. Noah [6.9b-10] b. The state of the Earth: corruption via violence [6.11-12] c. Divine speech/instruction i. Earth will be destroyed because of corruption [6.13] ii. Build a 1. Materials [6.14a] 2. Sealant [6.14b] 3. Dimensions [6.15, 16b] 4. Roof [6.16a] 5. Door [6.16b] iii. Destruction of Earth by means of Flood [6.17] iv. A Coming Covenant with Man and Animals [6.18-20] v. Take Foodstuffs for the Voyage [6.21] d. Noah‘s Compliance [6.22] II. The Deluge a. Flood Begins i. On 17.II.600 [7.11a] ii. Via dual vertical water ejections [7.11b] b. Embarkation i. Same day man and animals enter [7.13-16a] c. Flood(water) Increases i. Waters increase [7.17bα, 18a] ii. Waters lifts from land [7.17bβ, 18b] iii. Waters cover mountaintops [7.19-20] iv. Waters kill everything outside [7.21] v. Waters prevail 150 days [7.24] d. Flood(water) Decreases i. Remembering man and animals, Elohim has a wind blow to evaporating waters [8.1] ii. Dual vertical flow of waters ceases [8.2a] iii. After 150 days waters abate [8.3b] iv. On 17.VII.(600) rests on Ararat [8.4] v. On 1.X.(600) mountaintops are visible [8.5] e. Flood Ended i. On 1.I.601 waters died from earth [8.13] ii. On 27.II.(601) earth is completely dry [8.14] f. Disembarkation i. God commands Noah et al. to exit [8.14-17] ii. Noah et al. do so [8.18-19] III. Conclusion a. Blessings i. ―Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth‖ [9.1, 7] ii. Mankind may now be carnivores [9.2-3] 1. Provided blood is not ingested [9.4-5a] a. In which case transgressor‘s blood will be required [9.5b-6]
procedure that gives simultaneous attention to human life process (social and psychological), to human thoughts and feelings, and to linguistic formulations. It explores how these relate to each other, not rigidly but also not in an altogether arbitrary way‖ (italics his). 75
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
b. Covenant i. A Covenant is established 1. Parties: Elohim and all creatures [9.8-10] 2. Promise: Never will Elohim destroy the earth again via flood [9.11] 3. Sign: A Bow in the Clouds [9.12-13, 17] a. When seen, Elohim will remember the promise [9.14-16]
There are several linguistic structural markers in place in the P text whereby the above outline (Formen) has been determined.
[Superscription] The twdlwt formula has already been commented upon (2.1.1), and serves as a clear rubric for a new portion of literature. [I] In the Introduction the Divine discourse begins with the speech formulae
(Wortbericht) xnl Myhl) rm)yw (6.13aα), and the discourse continues to 6.21. An obedience report h#( Nk Myhl) wt) hwc r#) lkk xn #(yw (6.22) rounds out the section. [II] There are distinct structural markers delimiting the Flood events proper. Complete dates (i.e., a year-month-day registry) at the start (…xn-yyxl hn# tw)m-## tn#b; 7.11a) and the finish (…hn# tw)m-##w tx)b yhyw; 8.13a) of the Deluge function as the linguistic frame. Present also are intermittent signposts including the dual record of 150 days (7.24; 8.3b), and an apocopated compliance report in 7.16 (Myhl) wt) hwc r#)k). Beyond this there is a most distinct command–execution pattern in 8.15-17 || 8.18-19 which commences with the speech 304 formulae …rm)l xnl Myhl) rbdyw (8.15). [III] The Conclusion entirely comprises Divine speech; and, its two subunits are demarcated with elongated speech–addressees formulae: rm)yw wynb-t)w xn-t) Myhl) Krbyw
…Mhl (9.1) and rm)l wt) wynb-l)w xn-l) Myhl) rm)yw (9.8). There is no compliance report, since the blessing and covenant are unilateral; rather, there is the continuance of the Divine speech with …Myhl) rm)yw (9.12), and …xn-l) Myhl) rm)yw (9.17). Throughout P‘s account, furthermore, a few key words are recorded seven score. In I hbt is penned sevenfold, tyrb is writ seven times in III (and once in I), and between I and III 305 √tx# occurs in septuplet. Moreover, the independent Priestly record of the Flood exhibits a palistrophic structure.306
304 Twice is Myhl) rbdyw recorded in the Hebrew Bible beyond this occurrence (so Mp): Ex 6.2; 20.1. For rbdyw vs. rm)yw see Jan Heller, ―Sagen und Sprechen: Sagen (‘amar) und Sprechen (dibber) im Alten Testament,‖ Communio viatorum 22/3 (1979): 173-174. 305 Emerton, ―Examination, Part I,‖ 408. 306 Cf. Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 82-85. 76
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Superscription and Heading [6.9-12] Introduction (Divine Speech) [6.13-22] Entrance into [7.13-16a] Beginning of Flood: 17.II.600 [7.11] Rise of Floodwaters [7.17b-21] 150 days it prevails [7.24] God remembers [8.1a] 150 days it prevails [8.3b] Fall of Flood waters [8.1b-2a, 4-5] End of Flood: 1.I.601 [8.13a ,14] Exit from [8.15-19] Conclusion (Divine Speech) [9.1-17] (Subscription [9.28-29])307
This story‘s content viewed from the immediate literary context of Priestly material is of great import. Before the Flood Narrative, P has depicted the creation of the heavens and earth 308 (1.1–2.4a), which is the first twdlwt; next, the book of twdlwt (tdlwt rps), which traces the patronymics of Noah from Adam (5.1-28, 30-32), naturally segues into the twdlwt of Noah and the full exposé of this personage and his experiences. Thus Gen 6.9 is the sure start of a literary unit, particularly since it is P‘s first narrative as such. True to form, after the conclusion of the Flood Story the Priestly source continues cataloguing a forth (and subsequent) twdlwt(10.1ff), one featuring Noah‘s progeny (cf. 5.32 || 6.10 || 10.1). 2.2.1.1.2 The Form of non-P Material (cf. 1.2.3.1.2 & 2.3.2.2.1) It should be noted again that nP‘s literary contribution is not an independent stratum, thus its Formen cannot be construed as continuous and may or may not be autonomous. Nevertheless, the forms of nP content will be gauged in much the same way as the independent P source above. Hence in their various parts the forms of the smaller units from the nP hand is thus. Extension Units (Erweiterte Einheite) A. Introduction (6.5-8) a. YHWH observes the wickedness of man in the earth [6.5] i. God regrets creating mankind [6.6, 7b] b. YHWH resolves of obliterate man because of their evil [6.7a] i. Exception: Noah, who is favoured by God [6.8]
B. Preparations for the Flood (7.1-10,12) a. YHWH‘s Commands i. Noah and family to enter [7.1] ii. Seven pairs of clean animals to enter [7.2a, 3] iii. One pair of unclean animals to enter [7.2b] iv. Flood will come in seven days to wipe out life [7.4]
307 Concerning the subscription, or second half of twdlwt formulae, see Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1-11,26 (BZAW, 265; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998), 130-132. 308 Cf. Van Wolde, ―The Text as an Eloquent Guide: Rhetorical, Linguistic and Literary Features in Genesis 1‖ in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies (eds. L.J. de Regt, J. de Waard and J.P. Fokkelman), 134-146. 77
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
b. Noah‘s Compliance [7.5] i. Noah and family enters [7.6-7] ii. (Seven pairs of) clean animals enter [7.8-9] iii. Pairs of unclean animals enter [7.8-9] iv. Flood comes after seven day for 40 days [7.10, 12]
C. The Bird Sending Episode (8.6-12,13b) a. Noah opened the window of (after 40 days) [8.6] b. Noah sent forth the raven [8.7a] i. It went to-and-fro until the waters dried [8.7b] b. Noah sent forth the dove (first time) [8.8] i. It could not find dry land upon which to rest [8.9aα,γ] ii. It returns [8.9aβ] iii. Noah retrieves it [8.9b] c. Noah sent forth the dove (second time) (after seven days) [8.10] i. It returns with olive leaf in bill [8.11a] ii. Noah cognizes the waters are subsided [8.11b] d. Noah sent forth the dove (third time) (after seven days) [8.12a] i. It does not return [8.12b] e. Noah removed roof of and saw dry ground [8.13b]
D. Conclusion (8.20-22) a. The Sacrifice of Noah i. Noah built an altar [8.20a] ii. Noah sacrificed every (extra) clean animal [8.20b] b. The Response of YHWH i. God smelled the sacrifice [8.21aα] ii. God will never curse the ground again [8.21aβ] 1. Even though man is evil [8.21aβ] iii. God will never destroy every living thing [8.21b] 1. Seasons and crops will never cease [8.22]
Extensions (Erweiterungen) E. The Flood‘s Commencement (7.16b-17a) a. God closes door of [7.16b] b. Flood (i.e., rainfall) for 40 days [7.17a]
F. The Flood‘s Effects (7.22-23) a. Destroyed all living creatures on the land [7.22-23a] i. Except Noah et al. in the [7.23b]
G. The Flood‘s Restraint (8.2b-3a) a. Rainfall from the heavens are stopped [8.2b] b. Waters consequently recede [8.3a]
Since nP textual material is fragmentary extensions and extension units the form of each and as a whole is readily palpable. [A] This unit begins with Adonai seeing (6.5) and closes with Noah being favourable in Adonai‘s eyes (6.8). [B] Non-P imitates P‘s Formen in two ways in this unit (see above). First, is the speech–compliance frame (xnl hwhy rm)yw; 7.1aα + hwhy whwc-r#) lkk xn #(yw; 7.5). Second, is the date–(apocopated) compliance report frame (hn# tw)m ##-Nb xnw, 7.6a + hwhy hwc r#)k xn-t), 7.9b).
78
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
P nP
xnl Myhl) rm)yw (6.13) xnl hwhy rm)yw (7.1) …xn #(yw (6.22) …xn #(yw (7.5)
xn-yyxl hn# tw)m-## tn#b (7.11) hn# tw)m ##-Nb xnw (7.6) Myhl) wt) hwc r#)k (7.16) xn-t) Myhl) hwc r#)k (7.9)
[E, F, G] Non-P‘s Flood events proper, though extremely terse, begin (7.17a; cf. 7.12) and end (8.6; cf. 8.2b) with the timeframe of forty days (and forty nights). Another structural 309 marker is the temporal introductory word yhyw, which is used in this series of expansion pieces (7.17a) and the literary units which boarder it (B = 7.10, 12; C = 8.6).310 Consequently, yhyw is peppered throughout the central part of nP‘s total literary contribution and is always associated (in this section) with day counts, whether seven (7.10,) or forty (7.12, 17a; 8.6). [C] As has already been demonstrated (1.1.2.7), the bird sending episode is an autonomous literary unit by virtue of its chiastic structure (and its ANE emulations [see below]). [D] This unit mimics unit A in regards to Adonai‘s internal reflections, chiefly the linguistic parroting (see 1.2.3.1.2 and 2.1.1). The ways in which the non-Priestly Flood Story conflations are arranged in the literary context, both at the nP level and generally, are calculated. Gen 6.5 signals the beginning of the Flood Narrative proper, though it is a seamless transition from the sons-of- (the)god(s)–daughters-of-men preface pericope (6.1-4). Previously nP has listed its own genealogy of Cainites and Sethites, though not before inserting into P‘s genealogical record the etymological-aetiological logia concerning Noah‘s name and fate (5.29; cf. 3.14, 17).311 This little insertion finds fulfilment in nP‘s conclusion of the Flood (6.20-22) and following the conclusion in the episode of Noah the viticulturalist (9.18-29) an ironic fulfilment is realized: because Ham looked upon Noah‘s nakedness in the latter‘s stupor Noah pronounced a curse on his son—Noah who lifted the curse on the ground shortly thereafter impresses one on Ham (5.29 || 6.21; cf. 4.11). 2.2.1.1.3 The Composite (Final) Form The amalgamated Formen of the Flood Narrative, then, is accordingly.
309 Koch (Growth, 116, 119) claims the employment of yhyw is not only ―a much-used method of starting off a narrative‖ or ―new scene,‖ but is also indicative of the saga genre, which ―is not a type… concerned with the narration of historical events.‖ 310 Non-P also employs yhyw in 6.1 and 9.18, both signalling new literary units. Indeed, every occurrence of yhyw, save one (8.13a), is found in the nP corpora of Gen 6-9. 311 See Ellis, The Yahwist, 132-133. 79
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
P nP Noah [6.9-10] Divine Evaluation [6.5-7] Divine Evaluation [6.11-12] Noah [6.8; 7.1] Judgment [6.13, 17] Judgment [7.4] Construction [6.14-16] Forthcoming Covenant [6.18] Loading [6.19-21(22)] Loading [7.2-3(5); 6-9] Flood [7.11,13-16a, 17b-21,24 Flood [7.10,12, 16b-17a, 22-23 8.1-2a, 3b-5, 13a,14] 8.2b-3a] Bird Sending [8.6-12,13b] Disembarkation [8.15-19] Resolution/Blessing [9.1-7] Resolution/Blessing [8.20-22] Covenant [9.8-17]
In nP there is no covenant because it was not previously foretold; likewise there is no explicit reference of disembarkation because, arguably, the vessel was not reported to have been built. Non-P has the auxiliary bird sending scene, something P does not possess. 2.2.1.2 Corollary Forms of the Flood Narrative in the Hebrew Bible The Flood‘s form can be more clearly discerned when comparing it to other biblical Formen like it, whereupon the contour of both texts is illuminated. 2.2.1.2.1 A Corollary Form-Critical P Text: Genesis 17 A major and unique motif in P‘s version of the Flood story is that of covenant (8.16; 9.8-17). In P there is one other covenant, in Genesis, which serves as an appropriate text for form- critical comparative analysis; this is the covenant to Abraham in ch.17.312 Five key elements emerge from the two covenantal forms. 1. Traits of Human Representative Covenant Party 2. God establishes a Covenant 3. A Covenant Sign 4. An Everlasting Covenant 5. Covenantal Promise
[1] The traits of the (patriarchal) men with whom God enters into covenant are akin.
Whereas Klhth Myhl)h-t) wytrdb hyh Mymt qydc #y) xn (6.9), God imperatively commands Abraham to Mymt hyhw ynpl Klhth (17.1bβ). [2] God pronounces the establishment of a covenant verbatim in each co-text twice: ytyrb-t) ytmqhw (6.18a; 9.11 + 17.7, 19; cf. 9.9, 17 + 17.21).
[3] These covenants both possess an accompanying sign; the tyrb-tw) is in one case a bow (9.12, 17; cf. 9.13), and the tyrb tw)l in the other is circumcision (17.11).
312 See e.g., McEvenue, Narrative Style, 145-176. In particular, McEvenue notes the combining of palistrophe and panel writing techniques in the covenantal co-texts (72-78, 158-159, 170). Cf. Nihan, ―The Priestly Covenant,‖ in The Strata of the Priestly Writings (eds. S. Shectman and J.S. Baden), 98-103; Emerton, ―The Priestly Writer in Genesis,‖ JTS 39/2 (1988): 387; et al. 80
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
[4] Both covenants are said to be eternal (Mlw() in duration (9.16 + 17.13, 19; cf. 9.12). [5] There are naturally promises which comprise both covenants. With Noah the promise is to never drastically pair down humanity via a flood, and with Abraham the promise is to drastically increase humanity via his progeny and to provide a homeland for them. In particular, both men are promised/blessed with fruitfulness (√hrp = 8.17; 9.1, 7 313 || 17.6, 20) and multiplication (√hbr = 8.17; 9.1, 7 || 17.2, 20) of offspring. [–] One major difference between these covenants is that in the case of Noah God‘s covenant is unilateral whereas God‘s covenant with Abraham is contractual with compulsory actions for fulfilment (Gen 17.14, 23-27). 2.2.1.2.2 A Corollary Form Critical nP Text: Genesis 18.16–19.28 There is a comparable form to that of the nP‘s Flood conflations elsewhere in Genesis in the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18.16–19.28).314 Since the Sodom and Gomorrah story is almost entirely nP material it shall be compared in form to that of the nP conflations of the Flood story. In each story there are the following congruous contents.315 1. Conveyance of Divine Judgment upon a People 2. The Warning of One Concerning Destruction 3. The Saving of One Family from Destruction 4. Contrast Between Righteous and Wicked 5. Thorough Destruction (within Specified Scope) 6. Mode of Destruction: An Element 7. Blessings upon Familial Survivors/Warned One
[1] YHWH, in the Flood Story expressly communicates (internally) his judgment upon humanity and the land, and the impetus thereof (6.5-7); in the Sodom and Gomorrah story, YHWH‘s conveyance of judgment is lengthier and more subtle though in time the intention becomes unmistakable (18.17, 20ff).316 In both stories YHWH emits self-reflection or soliloquy.
313 Note further the dual adjectival descriptive d)m d)m; cf. Gen 7.9; 17.2, 6, 20; see also Gen 30.43; Ex 1.7; Num 14.7; 1 Kgs 7.24; 2 Kgs 10.4; Ezek 9.9; 16.13; 37.10. 314 So Wenham, ―Method in Pentateuchal Source Criticism,‖ VT 41/1 (1991) 103-105, 108-109; idem, ―Priority,‖ 251. See also Clark, ―The Flood and the Structure of the Pre-patriarchal History,‖ ZAW 83/2 (1971): 195, 200, 202; Carr, ―What Is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid), 166. 315 Gunkel maintained the analogous forms have consistent ideas, linguistics, and occasions (Martin J. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context [JSOTSup, 274; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999] 247 n.112). 316 In the latter story Abraham is privy to the coming destruction in much the same way as his counterpart; for Abraham seems to be listening in to YHWH‘s self, yet external, talk. 81
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
[2] In each story one person is warned of the ensuing destruction. In Gen 18-19* the one warned in advance of the forthcoming destruction is Abraham (18.17, 20ff; cf. 19.12-13); in Gen 6-8* it is Noah (7.1-5). [3] In both stories a family is saved from the thoroughgoing devastations. In the Flood the warned one and the saved family are the same (7.1-5ff; see especially 7.22-23). In Sodom and Gomorrah the family saved differs from the one warned, nevertheless Lot and his family—the extended family of Abraham—are alerted and escorted out of the destruction zone by angles and thus escape (19.12-26; except 19.14, 26). Both saved ones decidedly find favour in the eyes (Nh yny(b) of the Deity(‘s representative) (6.8 ||19.19). [4] The salvation of one family over against all others has to do with the issue of being righteous. In chs.6-8* Noah alone is righteous (qydc) in the face of widespread evil
((r) (7.1; 6.5-6). In chs.18-19* Abraham pleads for the salvation of the few righteous
(qydc) among the wicked ((#r) denizens (18.23, 25). [5] Insofar as the scope is specified, there is thorough and total destruction in both stories. In the Sodom and Gomorrah story the devastation encompassed those cities, the surrounding valleys and towns, and all the vegetation of the ground (19.25; cf. 19.27-29a). In the Flood story those who perished were all creatures that possessed living breath: mankind, beasts, creepers, and fowl (7.22-23).317 [6] The mode of destruction during the Flood is, naturally, water (7.6-10,12ff); and fire is the mode of destruction for Sodom and Gomorrah (19.24-25). This difference in element is noteworthy since God previously resolved to never again execute wide-scale destruction via water (flood), binding himself to that promise, God decimates Sodom and Gomorrah via the alternative means of fire.318 [7] There is a Divine blessing upon the warned one (and family) who survives the abovementioned destructions. In the case of the Flood the warned one who receives blessing is also the survivors of—those who pass through—the destruction: Noah and family (8.20- 22). In Sodom and Gomorrah the warned one whose family is blessed by the Deity has survived the destruction per se, though this is not the family who passed through the midst of
317 Further, in Gen 18-19* animals were presumably annihilated, though the story does not expressly state so; and in Gen 6-8* the vegetation is likely destroyed though that is not explicitly narrated (cf. 8.11). In each story what is explicitly destroyed on the one hand is that which is highlighted to be preserved on the other hand; for example what is inside the living versus what is outside it dying and the lack of vegetation (cf. 13.9-11) for Lot versus the preserved vegetation for Abraham and his flocks. 318 This last point, albeit, is an interpolation from Priestly material, Gen 9.8-17. 82
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
the fiery eradication; regardless that there is a familial blessing is of value form-critically (18.18-19). [+] There is one final corollary motif betwixt these two (composite) stories; however, it is a similarity on the Priestly stratum. In the final verse of the Sodom and Gomorrah story, 19.29, P imparts the datum that God remembered the warned one amidst the course of destruction: …Mhrb)-t) Myhl) rkzyw. This datum and phraseology is precisely what was 319 conveyed concerning the warned one of the Flood: …xn-t) Myhl) rkzyw (8.1a). 2.2.1.3 Form of the Genesis Flood vis-à-vis Form of Ancient Near Eastern Flood Stories Having compared the form of the P and nP Flood strands with other congruent forms of each stratum in the Hebrew Bible, form-critical investigation of ancient Near Eastern flood literature and the composite Genesis account may now be undertaken. The flood stories to be considered will be the Epic of Gilgamesh, Atrahasis, the Sumerian Deluge,320 and the Flood Narrative of Berossus.321 The majority of the aforesaid stories share over a dozen distinct traits. 1. The Deity‘s/deities‘ Decision to Destroy the World via Flood 2. The Warning of One concerning Destruction and a Command to Build a Vessel of Salvation 3. Description of Warned One 4. Description of Vessel a. Dimensions and Features b. Materials c. Occupants 5. Entrance into Vessel and/or Closing of Door 6. The Flood 7. Opening of Window/Roof 8. Bird Sending 9. Grounding of Vessel 10. Exit from Vessel 11. Sacrifice 12. New Life/Blessing 13. Immortality/Deification
319 Other Pentateuchal instances when Elohim remembers (√rkz) include: Gen 9.16; 19.29; 30.22; Ex 2.24; 3.15; Lev 26.45. 320 The texts and translations of the foregoing traditions are from Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (3rd ed. with supplement; ed. J.B. Pritchard; Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969). Since the translators use both curved, (), and square brackets, [], our additional insertions will be represented within curly brackets, {}. 321 The text of this tradition is cited from Heinrich Zimmern, The Babylonian and The Hebrew Genesis, III (trans. J. Hutchison; London: David Nutt, 1901), 48-49. Cf. W.G. Lambert and A.R. Millard, Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, with The Sumerian Flood Story by M. Civil (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969), 134-137; Russell E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (LHBOTS, 433 [Copenhagen International Series, 15]; New York: T&T Clark, 2006), 110-139. Though Berossus‘ record of a sisemic flood is a much younger record (c. 278 BCE) than the others its literary progenitor(s) is the Mesopotamian (Akkadian–Babylonian) traditions, hence it contains a longevous historical continutity; conversely, the Greek flood legends are not included in this section, even though contemporaries with Berossus‘ Babylonika, for they draw from alternate historical tragectories. Also, to a much lesser extent is there a structural and linguistic affinity in Egyptian sources; yet, see our treatment of ―Deliverance of Mankind from Destruction‖ (ANET, 10-11) and ―The Primeval Establishment of Order‖ (ANET, 9-10) in ch.6. 83
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
These points of similarity shall now be expounded in detail, citing the (translated) source material to demonstrate the parallelism. [1] Though the impetus for the destruction of mankind is wide-ranging (e.g., their clamour [Atrahasis],322 wickedness [nP], violence [P],323 or, the lack of a reason [Sumerian Deluge, Gilgamesh, Berossus]), the result is nevertheless by the same medium: a grand scale flood. Genesis; P ―I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth‖; ―For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall die‖ (6.13, 17). Genesis; nP ―The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth...The LORD said, ‗I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land...‖; ―…I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights…‖ (6.5, 7; 7.4). Sumerian Deluge ―My mankind, in its destruction I will…‖ (43:38) ―a flood [will sweep] over the {five} cult-centers; to destroy the seed of mankind‖ (44:156-157) Atrahasis OBV ―The land became wide, the peop[le became nu]merous, The land bellowed like wild oxen. The god was disturbed by their uproar. [Enlil] heard their clamor (And) said to the great gods: ‗Oppressive has become the clamor of mankind. By their uproar they prevent sleep. (104: 2-9) Thus a flood was ―commandest‖ and create{d}‖ (105: 391-393). Gilgamesh ―their heart led the great gods to produce the flood‖ (93: 14). Berossus -
[2] Typically among the Flood traditions a deity warning a human is part-and-parcel of the same deity commanding the warned human to build a craft that will ensure the latter‘s survival. The degree of detail in the Deity‘s/deities‘ forewarning generally agrees with the detail by which the warned one is alerted; for example, in P God divulges much detail because he has generated much evidence by which to judge mankind, and conversely in Gilgamesh no reasons are given to Utnapishtim because no explicit reason for destruction was determined in the council of gods. Genesis; P And God said to Noah, ‗I have determined to make an end of all flesh; for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make yourself an ark…‘ (6.13-14a) Genesis; nP Then the LORD said to Noah, ‗Go into the ark, you and all your household… I will send rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights… (7.1a, 4)
322 Batto (―Covenant of Peace,‖ 193) argues that the disruption of Enlil‘s sleep from the ―din (// )‖ of humans mirrors how ―Enlil‘s rest was earlier disturbed by the cries of rebellion () of the lesser gods (Atrahasis I.77). Under this light, the impetus of the deluge resembles more that of P (violence) than nP (wickedness). Cf. also clamour in Enuma Elish I.25, 37-40. See further Robert A. Oden Jr., ―Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1-11‖ ZAW 93/2 (1981): 197-216. 323 For a detailed comparison of P and nP motives for the Flood, see Hans-Peter Müller, ―Das Motiv für die Sintflut: Die hermeneutische Funktion des Mythos und seiner Analyse,‖ ZAW 97/3 (1985): 295-316. 84
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Sumerian Deluge ―Build giant…‖ boat (44:145; cf. line 208 ―giant boat‖) Atrahasis OBV ―Destroy the {reed} house, build a ship, Renounce (worldly) goods, Keep the soul alive! The ship that thou shalt build‖ (105:12-15) Atrahasis MBV ―build a large ship […] of good…shall be its structure. That [ship] shall be an ark, and its name Shall be ‗Preserver of Life‘‖ (105:6-8) Gilgamesh ―Man of Shuruppak, son of Ubar-Tutu, Tear down (this) {reed} house, build a ship! Give up possessions, seek thou life. Forswear (worldly) goods and keep the soul alive!‖ (93: 23-26) Berossus ―Chronos appeared in a dream to Xisuthrus…and revealed to him that on the fifteenth of the month Daesius mankind should perish through a flood. The god commanded him, therefore, to build a ship‖
A. Heidel enumerates the following lexical observations: ―The Sumerian recension designates [the vessel] as a magurgur, which means ‗a very great ship,‘ ‗a giant boat. …The Gilgamesh Epic calls this craft by the general term elippu, ‗vessel,‘ ‗ship,‘ ‗boat.‘‖324 And ―Berossus refers to the deluge boat as ska/foj, ploi=on, and nau=j, all three of which mean ‗ship,‘ or ‗boat.‘‖325 [3] The warned one goes by different names in each story, naturally; yet, he also goes by diverse yet similar monikers. Noah is the righteous one, Atrahasis means wise one, and Xisuthrus is ―a transliteration of Atra-Khasis‖326 also meaning wise. The protagonist‘s roles are quiet similar as well. Ziusuda and Xisuthrus are kings, and Ziusuda is also a priest. Noah and Utnapishtim are priest-like in that they both offer sacrifices (see below), also the latter is later said to be one amongst the assembly of the gods while the former walked with God. Furthermore, Xisuthrus is the tenth antediluvian king whilst Noah is the tenth (antediluvian) descendant from Adam.327 Genesis; P ―Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God‖ (6.9b) Genesis; nP ―But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD‖; ―Then the LORD said to Noah… I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation‖ (6.8; 7.1). Sumerian Deluge Ziusuda: king and priest (44:144)328 Ziusuda: ―Humbly obedient, reverently‖ (44:144) ―Anu (and) Enlil cherished Ziusuda‖ (44:256)329 Atrahasis NAV II Atrahasis: ―[endowed with w]isdom‖ (106:7)
324 Heidel, Parallels, 232. 325 Heidel, Parallels, 233. Also, ―Berossus, in his description of the deluge, employs the term kataklusmoj, ‗flood,‘ ‗innundation‘‖ (ibid., 240). 326 Eleanor Follansbee, ―The Story of the Flood in the Light of Comparative Semitic Mythology‖ in The Flood Myth (ed. A. Dundes; Berkley: University of California Press, 1988), 79. 327 In the Akkadian record, alternatively, there are eight antediluvian kings. See Daniel Hӓmmerly- Dupuy, ―Some Observations on the Assyro-Babylonian and Sumerian Flood Stories‖ in The Flood Myth (ed. A. Dundes), 49-59; Thomas C. Hartman, ―Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B,‖ JBL 91/1 (1972): 25-32; John Walton, ―The Antediluvian Section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5,‖ BA 44/4 (1981): 207-208; M.B. Rowton, ―The Date of the Sumerian King List,‖ JNES 19/2 (1960): 156-162; Thorkild Jacobsen, The Sumerian King List (Assyriological Studies, 11; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 69-127, esp. 77; ANET, 265-266. 328 Pašišu is a priestly title (ANET 44 n.43). 329 ―Perhaps a rendering ‗Anu Enlil‘ for ‗Anu and Enlil‘ is preferable‖ (ANET 43 n.7). 85
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Gilgamesh One among ―the Assembly of the gods‖ (93: 7) Berossus ―Xisuthrus, the tenth antediluvian king‖
[4] Each vessel is unique in its dimensions and features, materials, and dimensions. Nevertheless each craft is made with wood and/or reeds, coated with pitch/bitumen and occupied by the warned one, his family and/or friends, and varietal specimens of fauna. [a] dimensions and features Genesis; P ―This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its breadth fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits‖ (6.15); ―Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and set the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks‖ (6.16); ―make rooms in the ark‖ (6.14bα). Genesis; nP - Sumerian Deluge - Atrahasis NAV I ―like the vault of […], stout above and b[elow]‖ (105: 2-3) ―‗I have never built a ship […], Draw a design [of it on the gr]ound That, seeing the [des]ign, I may [build] the ship.‘ [E]a dre[w the design] on the ground (saying): ‗[…] what thou hast commanded […]‖ (105: 11-17). Gilgamesh ―The ship that thou shalt build, Her dimensions shall be to measure. Equal shall be her width and her length‖ (93: 28-30). ―I provided her with six decks, Dividing her into seven parts. Her floor plan I divided into nine parts‖ (93: 60-62). Berossus Xisuthrus…built the ship fifteen stadia long by two stadia wide
[b] materials Genesis; P Make yourself an ark of gopher wood…and cover it inside and out with pitch (6.14) Genesis; nP - Sumerian Deluge - Atrahasis MBV ―[…] ceil (it) with a mighty cover‖ (105: 9) NAV I ―calk‖ (105: 4) Gilgamesh ―‗Reed-hut, reed-hut! Wall! Wall!...Tear down (this) house, build a ship! (93:21, 24); ―Like the Apsu thou shalt ceil her.‖ (93: 31); ―I hammered water-plugs into her. I saw to the punting-poles and laid in supplies. Six ‗sar‘ (measures) of bitumen I poured into the furnace, Three sar of asphalt [I also] poured inside. Three sar of oil the basket-bearers carried. Aside from the one sar of oil which the caulking consumed, And the two sar of oil [which] the boatman stowed away (93: 65-69) Berossus -
Gilgamesh is the only tradition to supply details in this area. Utnapishtim‘s ―ship was made watertight by wedging in pointed strips of wood between the seams and pouring asphalt over them.‖330 The quantity of a sar, which contained the bitumen, is disputed.331
330 Haupt, ―The Ship of the Babylonian Noah,‖ 6. Cf. Forbes, Ancient Technology, vol.1, 62, 72 for the intersection of bitumen and reed walls—the building stuff of Utnapishtim‘s vessel. 331 Haupt (―The Ship of the Babylonian Noah,‖18) estimates six sar at ―about 1,680,000 gallons,‖ while Spieser (ANET 93 n.197) opts for one sar being equivalent to 8,000 gallons. 86
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
[c] specified occupants Genesis; P …you, your sons, your wife, and your sons' wives with you. And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive. (6.18-20) Genesis; nP Go into the ark, you and all your household... Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate; and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth. (7.1-3) Sumerian Deluge - Atrahasis MBV ―[Into the ship which] thou shalt make, [thous shalt take] the beasts of the field, the fowl of the heavens‖ … (105: 10-11). NAV I ―Aboard her [bring] thy grain, thy possessions, thy goods, Thy wife, thy family, thy relations, and the craftsmen. Beasts of the field, creatures of the field, as many as eat herbs, I will sent to thee and they shall guard thy door‖ (105: 6-10). Gilgamesh ―Aboard the ship take then the seed of all living things‖ (93: 27) ―All my family and kin I made go aboard the ship The beasts of the field, the wild creatures of the field, All the craftsmen I made go aboard‖ (94:84-85) Berossus ―…with his wife, his children, and his nearest friends‖ ―as well as birds and four-footed animals‖
[5] Naturally, said occupants indeed occupy the vessel—they enter it. Some stories assume the closing of the door (e.g., P, Berossus, etc.), while others state this action explicitly. Of the traditions that explicate the closing of the door only nP has YHWH shutting the door, otherwise the human protagonist is commanded by the god to do so himself (Atrahasis and Gilgamesh). Genesis; P ―On the very same day Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth, and Noah‘s wife and the three wives of his sons with them entered the ark, … And they that entered, male and female of all flesh, went in as God had commanded him‖ (7.13, 16a) Genesis; nP ―And Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him went into the ark, to escape the waters of the flood‖; ―and the LORD shut him in‖ (7.7, 16b) Sumerian Deluge - Atrahasis NAV I ―Enter [the ship] and close the door of the ship‖ (105: 6). Gilgamesh ―I entered the ship and battened up the entrance‖ (94: 93) Berossus -
[6] The Flood proper, inasmuch as recorded, progresses similarly; nonetheless, the duration of the flood varies a great deal; it is six days in Gilgamesh, seven days in the Sumerian record, forty days in nP, and three hundred days (one hundred fifty twice [7.24; 8.3b]) in P.
87
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Genesis; P …on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. …The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days. …Now the springs of the deep and the floodgates of the heavens had been closed…At the end of the hundred and fifty days the water had gone down (7.11, 24; 8.2a, 3b) Genesis; nP And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights. …For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth …and the rain had stopped falling from the sky. The water receded steadily from the earth. …After forty days Noah (7.12, 17a; 8.2b-3a, 6a) Sumerian Deluge ―All the windstorms, exceedingly powerful, attacked as one, At the same time, the flood sweeps over the cult-centers. After, for seven days (and) seven nights, The flood had swept over the land, (And) the huge boat had been tossed about the windstorms on the great waters‖ (44: 201-205) Atrahasis - Gilgamesh The flood prevailed for ―Six day and [six] nights‖ ―submerging the mountains‖ (94: 127, 109). ―When the seventh day arrived, The flood(-carrying) south-storm subsided…The sea grew quiet, the tempest was still, the flood ceased‖ (94: 129, 131) Berossus -
[7] Curiosity is met with hope when the protagonist opens the window and/or roof of the floating vessel. Genesis; P - Genesis; nP ―At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made‖ (8.6). ―…and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the face of the ground was dry‖ (8.13). Sumerian Deluge ―Ziusuda opened a window of the huge boat. The hero Utu brought his rays into the giant boat‖ (44: 207). Atrahasis - Gilgamesh ―I opened a hatch, and light fell upon my face‖ (94: 135) Berossus Then he opened some of the seams of the ship,
[8] The protagonist sending out birds is a common motif in flood stories; the only variable is what species of bird(s) is launched, for what purpose, and with what result. Genesis; P - Genesis; nP …and sent forth a raven; and it went to and fro until the waters were dried up from the earth. Then he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters had subsided from the face of the ground; but the dove found no place to set her foot, and she returned to him to the ark, for the waters were still on the face of the whole earth. So he put forth his hand and took her and brought her into the ark with him. He waited another seven days, and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; and the dove came back to him in the evening, and lo, in her mouth a freshly plucked olive leaf; so Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth. Then he waited another seven days, and sent forth the dove; and she did not return to him any more. (8.7-12) Sumerian Deluge - Atrahasis - Gilgamesh ―When the seventh day arrived, I sent forth and set free a dove. The dove went fourth, but came back; Since no resting-place for it was visible, she turned round. Then I sent forth and set free a swallow. The swallow went forth, but came back; Since no resting-place for it was visible, she turned round. Then I sent forth and set free a raven. The raven went forth and, seeing that the waters had diminished, He eats, circles, caws, and turns not around‖ (94-95: 145-154).
88
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Berossus When the flood began to abate he set free some of the birds to see if they would find dry land appearing above the water, but finding neither food nor a place to alight they came back against to the ship. After a few days Xisuthrus sent out the birds again, and this time they returned to the ship with clay-marked feet. When they were sent out a third time they returned no more, and Xisuthrus knew that dry land must now have reappeared.
[9] Each vessel grounds upon a mountain (range). Genesis; P ―the ark came to rest upon the mountains of Ararat.‖ (8.4) Genesis; nP - Sumerian Deluge - Atrahasis - Gilgamesh ―On Mount Nisir the ship came to halt‖ (93: 140ff) Berossus ... and finding that it had run aground on a mountain…
Though the mountains named are different, they nonetheless are of the general proximate region; for the ―mountains of Nizir thus lay east of Assyria, but they form part of a series of mountain chains extending to the north-west into Armenia,‖332 and Ararat is in the vicinity of ―a district in Eastern Armenia.‖333 [10] The occupants of the vessel uniformly disembark once the land is dry. The variation here is whether the exit was directed by a Deity (P) or upon the protagonists own volition (Berossus); in some cases disembarkation is assumed rather than explicitly relayed (nP, Sumerian, Atrahasis, Gilgamesh). Genesis; P Then God said to Noah, ‗Go forth from the ark, you and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you. Bring forth with you every living thing that is with you of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth—that they may breed abundantly on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth.‘ So Noah went forth, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him. And every beast, every creeping thing, and every bird, everything that moves upon the earth, went forth by families out of the ark. (8.15-19) Genesis; nP - Sumerian Deluge - Atrahasis - Gilgamesh - Berossus …he stepped out along with his wife, daughter, and pilot, kissed the earth…
[11] Commonly a sacrifice is immolated by the protagonist upon disembarkation, which is highly appreciated by the Deity/deities. Genesis; P - Genesis; nP Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart…‖ (8.20-21a).
332 George Smith, ―The Chaldean Account of the Deluge‖ in The Flood Myth (ed. A. Dundes), 46. 333 BDB, 76. 89
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Sumerian Deluge ―The king kills an ox, slaughters a sheep‖ (44: 211) Atrahasis - Gilgamesh ―Then I let out (all) to the four winds And offered a sacrifice. I poured out a libation on the top of the mountain. Seven and seven cult-vessels I set up, Upon their pot-stands I heaped cane, cedarwood, and myrtle. The gods smelled the savor, The gods smelled the sweet savor. The gods crowded like flies about the sacrificer.‖ (95: 155-161) Berossus …built an altar, did sacrifice to the gods…
[12] At the resolution of the flood there is typically the conveyance of a blessing of new life for the survivors, and it is often associated with a promise to never flood the earth again which is accompanied by a sign; this sanction is issued by the Deity/deities. Genesis; P And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, ‗Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. …And you, be fruitful and multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it. …I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.‘ (9.1, 7, 11) Genesis; nP ‗…I will never again curse the ground because of man…neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.‘ (8.21-22) Sumerian Deluge - Atrahasis -334 Gilgamesh The great goddess {Ishtar} resolved to ―never forgetting these days‖ regarding a ―destruction‖ ―deluge‖ (95: 162-165) Berossus -
[13] In many ancient Near Eastern flood stories the protagonist is rewarded with immortality/deification at the end. Though this is unorthodox for Israel, an everlasting (immortal, if you like) covenant between God and mankind—the image bearers of the Deity—is the next best equivalent. Genesis; P ―Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image‖ (9.6). ―the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth‖ (9.15b-16). Genesis; nP - Sumerian Deluge ―Life like (that of) a god they give him [Ziusuda], Breath eternal like (that of) a god they bring down for him (44: 257-258) Atrahasis OBV - Gilgamesh Utnapishtim gained immortality via obtaining ―a plant apart, Whereby a man may regain his life‟s breath‖ (96: 278-279; cf. 93: 7) Berossus and then, together with his companions, [Xisuthrus] was snatched away from earth. …Himself they saw no more, but a voice was heard in the air exhorting them to fear the gods, for Xisuthrus, as a reward of his piety, had now been permitted to go to dwell with the gods, accompanied by his wife, his daughter, and the steersman.
334 Batto (―Covenant of Peace,‖ 191, 194-195, 201) sees the giving of Nintu‘s fly-necklace in Atrahasis (III. V.46-vi.4) as paralleling other covenant signs, such as the bow in P and the reliability of the seasons in nP. 90
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
W.M. Clark deduces, ―P seems to know the tradition that the flood hero did not die‖ since the
―phrase ‗walked with God‘ (6 9) is used elsewhere only of Enoch (5 22) who in the Mesopotamian parallels and in post-Old Testament tradition did not die.‖335 Many biblical scholars have long presupposed that the Genesis Flood account has borrowed heavily from the Gilgamesh Epic;336 others propose the two traditions possess a common, yet distinct, literary antecedent.337 J.H. Tigay has submitted that the common source of the Gilgamesh Epic is the Akkadian Atrahasis Epic, the Old Babylonian Version most specifically.338 Outlining similarities (and differences), harmonization (and non- harmonization), artistic unity (and dependence), Tigay demonstrates how these evidences have direct dependency of the Gilgamesh Epic upon the Atrahasis Epic;339 furthermore, the ―giveaway‖ of reliance is one instance where Utnapishtim is referred to as Atrahasis (XI, 187)!340 Indeed, this proper pronoun confusion(?), or betrayal, is to be regarded as a diachronic portal into an older literary tradition by the same name: Atrahasis. The evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic, consequently, resembles the literary growth of the Genesis Flood in that two strands are intertwined, one independent composition and the other popular material (via oral tradition and/or written tradition) transplanted into the original to yield the final composite form.341
335 ―The Flood and the Structure,‖ ZAW 83/2 (1971): 186. Smith (―Chaldean Account,‖ 47) who elucidates the Chaldean account ―agrees with Berossus in making Sisit to be translated like the gods. This translation is in the Bible recorded of Enoch, the ancestor of Noah.‖ Cf. Heidel, Parallels, 137-223. 336 E.g., W.G. Lambert, ―A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis,‖ JTS 16 (1965): 291; Speiser, Genesis, 55; Leonard Woolley, ―Stories of the Creation and the Flood‖ in The Flood Myth (ed. A. Dundes), 96, 98; James George Frazer, ―The Great Flood‖ in The Flood Myth (ed. A. Dundes), 121; M.E.L. Mallowan, ―Noah‘s Flood Reconsidered,‖ Iraq 26/2 (1964): 66. 337 E.g., Gary A. Rendsburg, ―The Biblical Flood Story in the Light of the Gilgameš Flood Account,‖ in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21-23 July 2004 (ANES, 21; eds. J. Azize and N. Weeks; Leuven: Peeters, 2007) 113-127; Frymer-Kensky, ―The Atrahasis Epic and it Significance for our Understanding of Genesis 1-9,‖ BA 40/4 (1977): 147-155. 338 Jeffery H. Tigay, The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic (Wauconda, Ill.: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc., 2002), 215-218. In Tigay‘s words, ―in the case of the flood story there is no question but that Atrahasis served as the source for [GE] Tablet XI of the later version‖ (216). So S.N. Kramer, ―The Epic of Gilgameš and Its Sumerian Sources: A Study in Literary Evolution,‖ JAOS 64/1 (1944): 7-23; Simoons- Vermeer, ―The Mesopotamian Floodstories: A Comparison and Interpretation,‖ Numen 21/1 (1974): 21-25. Cf. Batto, ―Covenant of Peace,‖ 192; A.R. Millard, ―A New Babylonian ‗Genesis‘ Story,‖ TB 18 (1967): 13. 339 Tigay, Evolution, 214-240. 340 Tigay, Evolution, 216-217. 341 Tigay (Evolution, 217) elucidates, ―[t]he eleventh tablet of the late version (and the Utnapishtim section as a whole) therefore consists of two separate components: the flood story (from Atrahasis), and the rest of Gilgamesh‘s encounter with Utnapishtim (for which no source outside of Gilgamesh is presently known, and which was presumably composed by a writer of Gilgamesh).‖ The former phenomenon is equivalent to nP sections of Gen 6-9 and the latter like P‘s chronology of the Flood. 91
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.2.1.4 The Formengeschichte of the Flood Narrative Now the history (-geschichte) of the growth of the total structure (Formen) of the Deluge will be examined as far as its ordering and sequencing.342 Juxtaposing P and nP‘s form reveals points of uniformity and disparity. P and nP both have introductions (I || A) and conclusions (IV-V || D), as previously elucidated (2.1.1); and both convey a deluge (III || B,E,F,G]). A component unique to each is God‘s announcement of the forthcoming flood in P (II), and the series of bird sending in nP (C).343 Now we shall attempt to arrange the above textual units in a timeline of oldest to youngest (cf. 2.1.3). The P stratum is the presumed earliest textual unit, existing as an independent and complete story before redaction (see further 2.3). ―The post-priestly editor would,‖ on the other hand, ―have wanted to complete the P account to make it more like parallel accounts in the great civilizations of Mesopotamia‖ in Formen.344 There are three nP scenes in particular which mirror the ancient Near Eastern flood stories: the shutting of the door (E), the birds sending (C), and the sacrifice (D). It can be postulated that fragment E (7.16b-17a) was the first alien amplification (cf. 6.16) for it is synchronous only when no other enhancements of the P account is realized, yet it is anachronic with the (later) presence of the 7.1-10,12 conflation.345 C (8.6-12,13b), which is literarily autonomous, is the next distinguished unit of Mesopotamian corollary value to be added. The third textual unit with paralleling affinities is D (8.20-22) which features Noah‘s sacrifice. Once the major Mesopotamian Deluge story themes were corroborated into the Genesis Flood, nP inserted other material to serve as supplemental narrative. With the concluding text crafted, the introductory unit of the same ilk was fashioned. The nP
Introduction and Conclusion, A and D respectively, which are linked with the phrase […] rcy
(r…[w]bl (see 2.1.1), frames all other expansion units and expansions.
342 See Erhard Blum, ―Formgeschiche–A Misleading Category? Some Critical Remarks‖ in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century (eds. M.A. Sweeny and E. Ben Zvi; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 32-45. 343 ―It is these irregularities which are the starting point for the reconstruction of the different forms the tradition has taken‖ (Koch, Growth, 52). 344 Ska, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 18. Wenham concurs in ―Priority,‖ 251. ―[T]he Yahwist himself presumed his readers were familiar with the ancient epic, and did not feel obliged to spell out every familiar detail‖ (McEvenue, Narrative Style, 27n.15). Cf. Carr, Reading the Fractures, 242-245. Kratz (Composition, 258) states: ―In general, it is striking that the Priestly account of the flood is closer to the earlier versions of the Mesopotamian tradition, the Sumerian tablet of the flood and the Atrahasis epic, whereas the non-Priestly parts of the text add details from the version of the Gilgamesh epic: the counting of days, the closing of the ark, the rain, the experiment with the birds, the sacrifice.‖ Although Van Seters understands ―J‖ to take priority over P, he nevertheless views that ―[i]n the primeval history of Genesis 1-11, J combined eastern Mediterranean and Mesopotamian origin traditions to create a prologue for the stories of the ancestors‖ (The Pentateuch, 61). 345 See Ska, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 18-19; Blenkinsopp, ―Post-exilic lay source,‖ 57. 92
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Next, B (7.1-10,12) was compiled since it refers heavily to the C and D units. B and D know of the clean–unclean distinction of animals, and for that matter so does C with a clean (dove) and unclean (raven) bird at the fore. Further, B (7.1-10,12) is the largest repository text of common key terms and unique concepts of other textual units. B shares the key term hxm (6.7, 7.4, 23) with A and F; B attests with F the rare word Mwqyh (7.7, 23). So, F (7.22-
23) comes after B. Finally, B and G speak of rain (#mg) as the source of the deluge (7.12; 8.2b), so G (8.2b-3a) is the last insertion. Thus is the order from oldest to youngest literary parts after the P strand: F (7.16b-17a), C (8.6-12,13b), D (8.20-22), A (6.5-8), B (7.1-10,12), E (7.22-23), G (8.2b-3a). 2.2.2 Gattungenkritik At this juncture the following will be determined: [1] the Gattung of the Flood Story by comparing similarly analysed structures; [2] the Sitz im Leben of the narrative; [3] its function and intention; [4] the Gattungsgeschichte of Gen 6-9*. 2.2.2.1 The Guttung of the Flood Narrative The genre (Gattung) of the Flood Narrative will be analyzed from the two levels of literary contribution, P and nP, though preliminary remarks that apply to both strata may first be expounded. Both literary strands are prose; in particular, the prose is narrative (story) for it consists of characters, events, etc. Furthermore, there is a small piece of poetry in each literary stratum, both in their conclusions. P has three stanzas of lyric (9.6-7), and in nP two stanzas (8.22). By virtue of the melding of poetic and prosaic narratives in Gen 6-9* one can expect to experience literary latitude in terms of genre interpretation and classification.346 Based on the results of form criticism it can be established that many of the ancient Near Eastern Flood parallels are myths, the primary characteristics of a myth being a story of the gods.347 A consortium of gods is depicted most prominently in the beginning and ending of the ancient Near Eastern flood stories: they are conspiring destruction in the heavens beforehand, and they are crowding around the aroma of sacrifice afterward. Since, however, one God features in the Genesis Flood account (albeit with two names),348 the Deluge of Genesis does not entirely conform to the mythic genre categorization. But if the composite Genesis Flood is not full-scale myth then what genre does it portray?
346 Cf. Buss, Biblical Form Criticism, 209. 347 See John L. McKenzie, ―Myth and the Old Testament,‖ CBQ 21/3 (1959): 274, 278. 348 Cf. Samuel Shaviv, ―The Polytheistic Origins of the Biblical Flood Narrative,‖ VT 54/4 (2004): 527- 548. 93
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.2.2.1.1 The Genre of P‟s Material Derivative of the form and content of the Priestly text (6.9–9.17*) it appears the genre is that of a chronicle.349 A chronicle, or annals, is historical records arranged chronologically; typically chronicles are recorded facts with diminutive artistic style or narratological value.350 Such is the pedantic nature of the Priestly writings, as evident in much of Gen 1-11. Before examining the genre imprint of the P Flood, corollary patterns of chronicling will be observed in the other major literary contributions of P in Gen 1-11. There are two blocks of P material both before and after the flood; the latter two literary units are genealogies (chs.10*, 11*) and the former two blocks are a genealogy 351 (ch.5*) and the creation account (1.1–2.4a), which too is a genealogy (twdlwt). Distinct structural markers are present throughout these units. In Gen 1-11 twdlwt is recorded seven score; in 1.1–2.4a there are seven days of creation. In Gen 5* Noah is the tenth from Adam and in ch.11* Abram is the tenth from Noah. Consequently, P regularly displays systematic, chronicling, even if lacklustre, writing modus operandi. One should expect to find the same chronicling in the Flood record then, and one in fact does. P chronicles the Flood as a series of annals: I. Genealogy, pt.1 [6.9-10] II. Judgment [6.11-12] III. [6.13-21(22)] IV. Waters Rise [7.11-16a, 17-21, 24] V. Waters Fall [8.1-2a, 3b-5, 13a, 14] VI. Disembarkation [8.15-19] VII. Blessing [9.1-7] VIII. Covenant [9.8-17] IX. Genealogy, pt.2 [9.28-29]
There are several characteristics of chronicles here. One indicative of chronicles is the registry of time. When the flood begins and ends the year is given (7.11; 8.13), the flood lasts three hundred days (7.24 + 8.3), and intermittent reports are given by specifying the month (8.4, 5, 14). Similarly, chronicles also report on statuses. For example, the waters do not simply evaporate and the land become dry, rather the waters abate (Kk#; 8.1), decreased
(rsx; 8.3), even decreased steadily (rsx Klh; 8.5) and the land became dry (brx; 8.13) and then dried up without any moisture (#by; 8.14). The status of rising water is also equally as incrementally systematic (1.1.2.5). Detailed enumerations (e.g., construction, dimensions,
349 McEvenue (Narrative Style, 33) posits, ―[t]his is not legend or storytelling, but rather annals, or chronicle—an official record of who, what, and when.‖ 350 The words ―historical‖ and ―facts‖ are used pensively; they are historical facts in as much as the biblical author interpolates them to be. 351 Each of these four literary blocks are highly pedantic in nature; conversely, compare the genealogies of nP in 4.17-26 who has infused short tales; e.g., 4.17b, 20b, 21b, 22b, 23-24, 26b. 94
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
materials, features, occupants and cargo of the) and consistent repetitions (e.g., the parties, promise/terms, and sign of the tyrb), albeit tedious and pedantic, factor in chronicles. Therefore, the genre employed by P in the Flood record is the favoured chronicle as evident from its many features. 2.2.2.1.2 The Genre of non-P‟s Material The non-Priestly literary conflations of 6.5–8.22 perhaps do not at first appear to be mythic— there is one God, YHWH, who alone is sovereign and who neither competes nor consorts with other deities. Upon further investigation, however, there may be latent mythic elements present in the respective textual units. 352 353 First and most overtly mythic are the Myhl)h-ynb who appear in 6.1-4, which is the preface to nP‘s introduction of the Flood (6.5-8). If these are quasi to extensively supernatural beings, then their presence in said pericope sets an overture for the ensuing narrative. Are these beings killed in the Flood?354 If so, would this convey a war amongst the gods? At any rate, it is altogether likely that we possess a myth fragment in Gen 6.1-4 in the 355 Myhl)h-ynb. A second feature in the nP stratum which is portentous of myth is YHWH‘s initial decision to destroy the earth because of evil mankind and then YHWH‘s opposite resolution based on the same criteria (6.5-6 || 8.21), namely to never again destroy the earth even though mankind is entirely evil. This dilemma is problematic for many, contesting that no persuasive arguments have been posited for the apparent contradiction.356 This dialectic is easily resolved though in the context of parallel Flood accounts from antiquity. In each extant case
352 Occurrences include Gen 6.2, 4; Job 1.6; 2.1 (38.7). 353 See Childs, Myth and Reality in the Old Testament (SBT, 27; Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1960) 49-57; Hendel, ―Of Demigods,‖ 13-26. An alternative view posits these are godly Sethite men; see e.g., Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 371-372; Childs, Myth and Reality, 49-50. 354 Childs (Myth and Reality) writes, ―[i]t is most questionable whether the original myth [of Gen 6.1-4] had anything to do with the flood‖ (52). Yet as it stands in its final position ―the story serves as an example in 6.5 of the ungodly conditions before the flood‖ (57). 355 Childs (Myth and Reality, 55) says, that though a ―torso‖ of the original myth is retained ―it is clear that the myth was aetiological in character. It explained the presence of giants as stemming from this mixture of the divine with the humans.‖ Further, ―it took a long period of [oral] assimilation to render it harmless.‖ Cf. Theodor Reik, Myth and Guilt: The Crime and Punishment of Mankind (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1970), 406-407; Gunkel, Legends, 14-15; Niditch, Folklore and the Hebrew Bible (Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004), 43-44. 356 Snaith (Hebrew Text of Genesis I-VIII, 46) elucidates: ―[The Rabbis] held that man had two yetsers, a good and a bad.‖ ―Some rabbis thought that the Lord regretted that He had created the evil spirit (‗yetzer‘ in Hebrew) in man‖ (Genesis Rabbah 274) (Theodor Reik, Myth and Guilt, 328 [329]). Robert S. Kawashima (―Homo Faber in J‘s Primeval History,‖ ZAW 116/4 [2004]: 499) extrapolates, ―human »inclination« (yeṣær) (6,5; 8,21) towards evil corresponds to their »formation« (yṣr) (3,7) at God‘s hand.‖ Cf. Hugh C. White, Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 167; cf. also, Jan Christian Gertz, ―Noah und die Propheten: Rezeption und Reformulierung eines altorientalischen Mythos,‖ DVJs 81/4 (2007): 503-522, esp. 519-522. 95
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
the majority of the multiplicity of gods pronounce and enact the deluge for various reasons, though at least one god warns one human who then is able to make preparations for preserving his life (and the lives of some others); invariably, the flood hero is saved and then saves, in a certain respect, the gods by means of offering life sustaining sacrifice. In the end, the minority of gods have proved convincingly that the complete destruction of mankind is not a sage directive. Thus, when a majority of gods make the decision to destroy humanity the minority of gods is correct in preserving it. Consequently, for YHWH to play both these parts can be seen as the author/compositor preserving a mythic element from other Flood sources, the mythic nature of which is just barely suppressed.357 Third, nP material is sympathetic to other flood myths as evidenced by it contributing to the Genesis Flood story many literary components shared only with flood myths of the ancient Near East.358 These textual units include the bird sending scene and the sacrifice whose fragrance the Deity inhales, chiefly. In sum, nP literature contains several features of suppressed mythic components; hence, its genre can be described as broken myth (B.S. Childs), or faded-myth (H. Gunkel).359 2.2.2.1.3 The Composite Genre If P is basically chronicle and nP is essentially faded myths, then when these two are amalgamated in the final, received text what we have is a genre which stands between them:360 saga (Sage).361 J.J. Scullion defines how ―Sage is a story handed down in popular tradition, often committed to writing, concerned with particular persons, places and times, in
357 Although another explanatory matrix is that YHWH is merciful even in extreme judgment. 358 Ellis (The Yahwist, 142-143) believes this to be a case of the ―Yahwists ‗depaganizing- retheologizing‘ technique‖; however, he holds the flood at the same level of transformation with the sons-of- gods section, which is far from thorough. 359 Childs, Myth and Reality, 102; Gunkel, Legends, 14-15. To clarify, Gunkel saw the whole of the Flood narrative as ―faded myth‖ (cf. Gunkel, Genesis, xii-xiv); here we are using the term but applying it to nP material. Cf. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. Peter R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1965), 35-36. Contra Ellis (The Yahwist, 26) who sees ―J‖ as saga. 360 Steck (Old Testament Exegesis, 108) advises ―one must also take into account that, within a text, a genre can appear in the framework of another genre, covering a larger text. The former would thus be called a ‗component genre‘ and the latter would be called the ‗framing genre‘ (K. Koch).‖ Others detect a hybrid of genres. For example, Skinner (Genesis [ICC, 1; New York, N.Y.: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1910], viii-ix) saw the Genesis Flood as a mixture of legend and myth (cf. Gunkel, Legends, 14-15); George W. Coats leaves open the possibility of the Flood being a fusion of tale and novella (―Tale‖ in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature [JSOTSup, 35; ed. G.W. Coats; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985], 69); Richard H. Moye (―In the Beginning: Myth and History in Genesis and Exodus,‖ JBL 109/4 [1990]: 580) sees the merger of myth and history. 361 The German Sage can also be translated ―legend;‖ that the two English terms are used often times differently for the one term has oft been problematic, confusable, and lamented. See Zimmern, The Babylonian and The Hebrew Genesis, 56; John J. Scullion, ―Mӓrchen, Sage, Legende: Towards Clarification of some Literary Terms used by Old Testament Scholars,‖ VT 34/3 (1984): 327; Van Seters, Abraham in History and Tradition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1975), 131 n.19; Ronald M. Hals, ―Legend: A Case Study in OT Form-Critical Terminology,‖ CBQ 34/2 (1972): 169. 96
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
which extraordinary events occur in ordinary places.‖362 Further, ―saga is a repository for the economic, intellectual and religious experiences of countless generations. It draws all periods together, and compresses the events into a language with highly symbolical overtones.‖363 Consequently, sagas are ―reality poeticised‖364 and as such are quasi-historical records.365 The saga genre is evident in the composite Genesis flood because there are polarized366 and mute367 characters, and settings are (very nearly) void.368 All of the criteria from the foregoing list are indicative of Gen 6-9*. Thus, even though other genre categorisations have been advanced for the composite Flood Narrative,369 such as folklore,370 myth,371 or tale,372 we maintain the composite Genesis Flood to be a saga.373
362 ―Mӓrchen, Sage, Legende,‖ 330. Contra ―Legend‖ which ―is a story about a holy person or a collection of stories about a holy person or persons, put into writing to be read at certain times for the edification of a community or to be read privately to inspire imitation‖ (ibid., 334). J. Alberto Soggin, (Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon [3rd ed.; OTL; trans. John Bowden; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989], 54) asserts, alternatively, the saga is about a group, community, or nation, whereas the legend is about an individual. This is difficult in the case of the Flood Narrative, though; for, is the Flood primarily about a group (Noah‘s family / the new humanity) or primarily about an individual (righteous Noah)? 363 Koch, Growth, 156. He states further, ―it is wrong to take out the supernatural, and perhaps also the unlikely elements of a saga, thus reducing it to its historical core and making it part of a historical investigation as if it were nothing but an exaggerative elaboration of historical events‖ (154). ―It is only today that the saga is considered to be a pure poetic composition. For the original narrators it was pure reality, for they saw the world in mythical terms‖ (155; cf. 119). Von Rad (Genesis, 34-35) notes: ―All sagas as we have them are concerned much less with men than with God. God is everywhere the real narrative subject, so to speak, of the saga—or rather, its inner subject; men are never important for their own sakes, but always as objects of the divine activity; as those who both affirm and deny God and his commands.‖ 364 Koch (Growth, 156) maintains that ―Gunkel was right in emphasising that ‗poetic narratives (sagas) are much more able than prose to be the vehicles of thought, even thoughts of a religious kind‖ (157). Cf. Tucker, Form Criticism, 38. (Gunkel, Legends, 10-12): ―History, which claims to inform us of what has actually happened, is in its very nature prose, while legend is by nature poetry, its aim being to please, to elevate, to inspire and to move‖ (10). 365 Tucker (Form Criticism, 30): ―Saga originates at the oral level and depends partly upon tradition and partly upon imagination‖ (quoted from Gunkel, Legends, 5-6). J.A. Wilcoxen (―Narrative‖ in Old Testament Form Criticism [ed. J.H. Hayes; San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University Press, 1974], 60): ―sagas contain kernels of historical truth.‖ Westermann (Genesis 1-11, 402): ―the flood narrative…is describing a primeval happening, not a historical event.‖ A.R. George (―The Epic of Gilgameš: Thoughts on Genre and Meaning,‖ in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria [eds. J. Azize and N. Weeks], 45): ―Legends are narrative, sacred or secular, set in historical time and the familiar world and featuring human protagonists. They are also held to be true, if not by all narrators and every audience then at least by someone somewhere.‖ Koch ( Growth, 154-155): ―it is wrong to take out the supernatural, and perhaps also the unlikely elements of a saga, thus reducing it to its historical core and making it part of a historical investigation as if it were nothing but an exaggerative elaboration of historical events‖ (154). ―It is only today that the saga is considered to be a pure poetic composition. For the original narrators it was pure reality, for they saw the world in mythical terms‖ (155; cf. 119). 366 Koch, Growth, 149. 367 Tucker, Form Criticism, 30 (citing Gunkel, Legends, 63). 368 Tucker, Form Criticism, 31 (citing Gunkel, Legends, 67ff.). 369 Buss (Changing Shape) states, ―Genres, as they appear in history, are not cleanly divided from one another‖ (85); further, ―Generic divisions cut across one another, so that they form a multidimensional pattern‖ (87). 370 Wilcoxen, ―Narrative,‖ 63; Niditch, Folklore. 97
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Saga alone, however, is too broad a classification; it must be narrowed down.374 Indeed, Gen 1-11 is broadly classified as a unit of mythical sagas,375 which speak of the origins of the world. Gen 6-9* can then be further defined as a hero saga (Volksheldensagen).376 In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Utnapishtim is circuitously referred to as ―hero‖ when he and his wife are in the process(?) of deification, that is becoming ―like unto us [i.e., the gods] gods,‖ and Utnapishtim refers to himself as a ―hero‖ (ANET 95:194, 203). In this way, Utnapishtim is imaged after the god Enlil since previously in the epic the latter is bestowed the appositional titles, ―‗Thou wisest of gods, thou hero‘‖ (ANET 95:178). Though the explicit usage of ―hero‖ is wanting in the Genesis record, Noah is implicitly conceived of as a hero since this attribute can be corroboratively transferred to Noah from its presence in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Moreover, God is the hero enthroned over the lwbm (Ps 29.10) and it was God who forewarned, equipped, promised, and providentially guided Noah to pass through the flood—emerging on the other side of the universally destructive deluge alive. Noah is also reminded by God, after the Deluge, that the former (along with all humanity) is created in the latter‘s image (Gen 9.6b)—so the connection between Enlil and Utnapishtim. Noah is therefore effectively bequeathed the status of (human) flood hero.377 The Flood also appears to be an aetiological saga (ätiologischen Sage). Although the stock explanatory phrase ―that is why…,‖ so popular to many aetiological sagas, is absent from the Flood Narrative there are nevertheless many points of entry into the discussion of
371 Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963) 111-119; J.W. Rogerson, Myth in Old Testament Interpretation (BZAW, 134; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974), 25. 372 McEvenue, Narrative Style, 182; Coats, ―Tale,‖ 69; idem, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature (FOTL, I; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983), 73, et passim. 373 So Von Rad, Genesis 124; Gunkel, Legends, 14-18 and Genesis, 67-68. Gunkel, in fact, sees all Genesis as saga (Genesis, xi). Cf. Sean M. Warner, ―Primitive Saga Men,‖ VT 29/3 (1979): 325-335. Contra Van Seters who thinks saga is a ―meaningless‖ classification (The Pentateuch, 60), for him the form of the Pentateuch is historiography; see also David Greenwood (―Rhetorical Criticism and Formgeschichte: Some Methodological Considerations,‖ JBL 89/4 [1970]: 423) who believes ―‗saga‘ [is] a term which ought properly to be reserved for Icelandic literature.‖ 374 Koch, Growth, 120. 375 Wilcoxen, ―Narrative,‖ 61. 376 Wilcoxen, ―Narrative,‖ 61 (81); Koch, Growth, 151-153; Cf. R. Todd Stanton, ―Asking Questions of the Divine Announcements in the Flood Stories from Ancient Mesopotamia and Israel,‖ in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria (eds. J. Azize and N. Weeks), 147-148. 377 Skinner (Genesis, ix) comments that in myth/legend there is a ―universal tendency to transfer mythical traits from gods to real men…so that the most indubitable traces of mythology will not of themselves warrant the conclusion that the hero is not a historical personage.‖ Noah, for the biblical author(s)/redactor(s), appears to be a hero for more general reasons. For P Noah is a hero because he (like Enoch) walked with God, and was completely righteous and obedient; because he is the human figurehead of the unilateral covenant regarding prohibitive Flood destruction; because Noah is portrayed as the neo-Adam, the patriarch of (the new) humanity. Noah is a hero for nP in that he was the first to offer a pleasing sacrifice unto God, thus not only marking Noah as the source of sacrificial worship, but Noah is further the curse lifting catalyst who restores the arable ground to a fertile, and less arduous, agent. 98
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
origins and/or causes of natural and theological phenomena.378 For example, discussion of the bow, as a covenantal sign, segues into the related conversational topics of the covenantal promise which then evolves into relating part or the whole of the Flood story.379 2.2.2.2 The Sitz im Leben of the Flood Narrative The elucidation of a text‘s life-setting (Sitz im Leben) entails determining the social occasion wherefrom the Flood story took written shape as well as the physical location wherein the story was committed to writing.380 Broadly concerning the historical memory, we agree with C. Westermann that ―[w]e can be certain that actual flood disasters gave rise to the narrative; one does not trace the broad distribution of the story back to a ‗universal‘ disaster that flooded the whole planet Earth in remote antiquity, but to the real awareness of early humankind that it was threatened.‖381 Regarding the general literary transmission (shaping from oral to written) P.G. Kirkpatrick explains well the process. The story-teller not only interprets the tradition but where he or she considers it necessary will improve upon the tradition by adding a scene or answering questions which may be raised in the mind of the story-teller during the process of transmission. The process of recreation of even this sacred religious tradition is quite radical, and at no stage is the transformation due to a lack of memory.382 To be more precise than the above general observations requires each literary strand to be examined individually; henceforth, the Sitz im Leben, which is seminal to interpretation, shall
378 Gunkel (Legends, 17) states, ―In the case of the legend of the Deluge…there is an ætiological, or explanatory feature at the close: Why is there never such a flood again? And what is the meaning of the rainbow?‖ Likewise, Skinner (Genesis, xi) relates how the aetiological myth of the ―Flood-story tells us the meaning of the rainbow, and of the regular recurrence of the seasons.‖ See also Fox, ―Sign of the Covenant,‖ 569-573; W. Friedemann Golka, ―The Aetiologies in the Old Testament; Part 1,‖ VT 26/4 (1976): 419; idem, ―The Aetiologies in the Old Testament; Part II‖ VT 27/1 (1977): 44-46; Long, The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament (BZAW, 108; Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1968), 69-73. 379 One might envision the scene depicted in Josh 4.6, 21 where a child asks his parents about certain memorials, etc. which then gives rise to a teaching moment. 380 There has been a serious distancing away from Gunkel‘s one-to-one text to setting ratio in more recent years. See Blum, ―Formgeschiche,‖ 35-43; Martin Rösel, ―Inscriptural Evidence and the Question of Genre‖ in Changing Face (eds. M.A. Sweeny and E. Ben Zvi), 108; Tremper Longman III, ―Israelite Genres in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context‖ in Changing Face (eds. M.A. Sweeny and E. Ben Zvi), 181-182; Buss, Changing Shape, 149-150 et passim. Cf. Knierim, ―Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,‖ Int 27/4 (1973): 463-466; Buss, Changing Shape, 206-211. 381 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 477 (395). Similarly, Lambert (―A New Look,‖ 296) states, the ―Mesopotamian story reads very much like an account of the annual flood projected on to the mythological plane.‖ Cf. also Mallowan, ―Reconsidered,‖ 66. 382 Patricia G. Kirkpatrick, The Old Testament and Folklore Study (JSOTSup, 62; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988), 70. Additionally, she notes, ―word-for-word memorization of a fixed oral tradition does not occur. Indeed, the concept of a fixed oral tradition is a contradiction in terms‖ (71). Cf. also Skinner, Genesis, xiii-xiv; Walter E. Rast, Tradition History and the Old Testament (OTS; ed. G.M. Tucker; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1972), 7-8, 15; R.C. Culley, ―An Approach to the Problem of Oral Tradition,‖ VT 13/2 (1963): 113-125; Burke O. Long, ―Recent Field Studies in Oral Literature and Their Bearing on OT Criticism,‖ VT 26/2 (1976): 187-198. 99
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
be extrapolated.383 Two crucial texts, one in the Prophets and the Writings, illuminate the Sitz im Leben for P material. For nP, cultural influences as well as the broader biblical tradition inform the life-setting of those expansion texts. 2.2.2.2.1 The Sitz im Leben of P‟s Material
Other than its ubiquitous usage in the Flood Narrative, lwbm appears elsewhere once in the Hebrew Bible: Ps 29.10. Psalm 29 has often been deemed a Canaanite poem that has been adopted and emended into an orthodox poem for the Psalter by editing the Tetragrammaton in lieu of Ba‘al.384 While there are numerous fascinating aspects to this psalm, our purpose necessitates focus to be limited to the query concerning the possible relationship between the 385 solitary psalmic occurrence of lwbm and the Genesis leitmotif. Ps 29.10 reads, lwbml hwhy
Mlw(l Klm hwhy b#yw b#y. 386 The singular occurrence of lwbm alone provides a linkage to the Flood Narrative, yet this nexus can be further substantiated with the corroboration of the poem‘s first of seven 387 hwhy-lwq attestations: Mybr Mym-l( hwhy…Mymh-l( hwhy-lwq (29.3) —indeed, ―V.10a ist eine Art explizierender Weiterführung von V.3b.‖388 The adjectival modifier especially 389 comports with Gen 6-9, for Mym(h) is the subject of the verbal form hbr (Gen 7.17[18]); moreover, as has previously been noted (0.1), lwbm and ymIi/Mym(h) in Gen 6-9 are set in juxtaposition and thus are to be taken appositionally (6.17 [P]; 7.6, 7, 10 [nP]; 9.11, 15 [P]). The syntax of Ps 29.10—especially the prefixed lāmed—can be rendered a variety of ways. M. Dahood believes ―le denotes ‗from‘ in a temporal sense;‖390 thus the grammar
383 Cf. Sweeney, ―Form Criticism‖ in To Each Its Own Meaning (eds. S.L. McKenzie and S.R. Haynes), 67. 384 See e.g., H.L. Ginsberg, ―A Phoenician Hymn in the Psalter,‖ in Atti del XIX Congresso Internazionale degli Orientalisti (Roma, 1935), 472-476; Cross, ―Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament,‖ BASOR 117 (1950): 19-21; J.C.L. Gibson, Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977), 63, 65; cf. Mitchell Dahood, Psalm I, 1-50 (AB, 16; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965), 175; John Day, ―Echoes of Baal‘s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habakkuk III 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI,‖ VT 29/2 (1979): 143-151; F.C., Fensham ―Psalm 29 and Ugarit‖ in Studies in the Psalms: Papers Read at 6th Meeting held at the Potchefstroom University for C.H.E., 29-31 January 1963 (Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeen-skap in Suid-Afrika; Potchefstroom, South Africa: Pro Rege–Pers Beperk, 1963), 84-99, esp. 92-93; B. Margulis, ―A Ugaritic Psalm (RŠ 24.252),‖ JBL 89/3 (1970): 292-304. 385 Occurrences include Gen 6.17; 7.6, 7, 10, 17; 9.11, 15, 28; 10.1, 32; 11.10 386 The meturgeman translates and interpolates Ps 29.10 as follows: ―The Lord sat for judgment against the generations of the flood to punish them; and the Lord sat upon the throne of mercy and rescued Noah, and reigns over his sons for ever and ever‖ (David M. Stec, The Targum of Psalms [The Aramaic Bible, 16; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004], 68). Cf. Artur Weiser, The Psalms (trans. Herbert Hartwell; OTL; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1962), 265. 387 It is contested whether the phrase omitted by ellipses should even be in the verse. Cf. Siegfried Mittmann, ―Komposition und Redaktion von Psalm XXIX,‖ VT 28/2 (1978): 191. 388 Mittmann, ―Komposition und Redaktion,‖ 189. 389 Granted, Mym(h) accompanies the verb brg more often (Gen 7.18, 19, 20, 24). Cf. Mp in Ps 29. 390 Psalm I, 180; Cf. Grisanti, ―lwbm,‖ NIDOTTE, 2: 836-837. 100
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
yields something like, ‗YHWH sits
391 Dahood affirms Mlw(l ―really means ‗primeval time, Urzeit‘‖ (Psalm I, 180). 392 E.g., Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 155 n.43; so Peter C. Craigie and Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 1-50 (2nd ed.; WBC, 19; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Inc., 2004), 243. Cf. Carola Kloos, Yhwh‟s Combats with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel (Leiden: Brill, 1986), 62-93. 393 Dahood, Psalm I, 180. Cf. also David Noel Freedman and C. Franke Hyland, ―Psalm 29: A Structural Analysis,‖ HTR 66/2 (1973): 254. 394 Craigie and Tate (Psalms 1-50, 248-249) judge that it ―symbolizes the subjugation of chaotic forces. But the Hebrew background draws upon the flood traditions of the Genesis flood story‖ as well. Davis A. Young (The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church‟s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995], 3) also maintains that ―[a]lthough this text may allude to the power of Yahweh displayed in the deluge of Noah, it may perhaps better be understood to refer to the primeval waters of Genesis 1:2.‖ 395 Craigie and Tate, Psalms 1-50, 246. 396 ―The initial setting for its use would have been in a victory celebration undertaken on the return of the army from the battle or military campaign. At a later stage in the history of the psalm‘s use, it came to be a more general part of the resources for Israel‘s worship, though it was probably associated primarily with the Feasts of Tabernacles‖ (Craigie and Tate, Psalms 1-50, 246). Cf. Rast, Tradition History, 19. 397 Moses Buttenwieser, The Psalms (LBS; New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1969), 152-153; cf. H.C. Leupold, Exposition of the Psalms (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1969), 691. 101
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
The Priestly writer‘s literary context is most probably the late exilic era,398 since the single most substantial reference to Noah in the Hebrew Bible outside of Genesis is in 399 Deutero-Isaiah. It is here where mention is made not only of this personage (xn) but also 400 401 his flood/era (ym ) and a covenant (tyrb). Isa 54.9-10 reads: For this is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you and will not rebuke you. For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed, says the LORD, who has compassion on you.402 The prophet Isaiah (or whoever was using ―Isaiah‖ as a pseudonym in Deutero-Isaiah) has in mind and memory the oral tradition form of the Flood story, yet the degree to which this oral form resembles the written form(s) of the textus receptus cannot be known.403 Nevertheless, this prophetic reference to Noah by Deutero-Isaiah motivated P to commit the account into writing for the first time.404 Based on this analogy, the setting of the Jewish people is congruous to the event of the Deluge story from their past.405 The allegorical parallels consist of the following: (1) evildoers undergo wholesale destruction; (2) a righteous remnant emerges beyond the destruction; (3) for the survivors there is an immutable covenant of
398 Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, 147-148, 160. 399 Other than genealogy (1 Chron 1.3-4) there are the two references in Ezek 14 (vv.14, 20) which merely identify Noah, as well as Daniel and Job, as renown for righteousness. 400 Christopher R. North (The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary to Chapters XL-LV [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964], 247) observes this word to be a paronomasia, meaning either ―waters‖ or ―days‖ of Noah. Klaus Baltzer (Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55 [Hermeneia; trans. Margaret Kohl; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2001], 446) noticing the same comments ―the ambiguity may very well be intentional.‖ 401 That this is a self-standing prophetic word is indicated by the paragraph markers (s) around it. Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 40-55 [AB, 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002], 364) posits: ―The well-established thematic link between covenant and marriage makes vv9-10 an appropriate nexus between Zion as woman and Zion as city. The covenant with Noah is introduced in order to affirm the oath.‖ 402 David M. Gunn (―Deutero-Isaiah and the Flood,‖ JBL 94/4 [1975]: 493) asserts, ―The passage makes it clear that Deutero-Isaiah saw the exile and the imminent deliverance as being essentially of the same order as the events of the flood and what followed, and that for him the flood, like the exodus, was an event of great paradigmatic value for the people in exile.‖ Cf. Batto, ―Covenant of Peace,‖ 187-211. 403 Cf. B.S. Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 429; C. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66 (trans. David M.G. Stalker; OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 276. 404 Antoon Schoors (I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. XL-LV [VTS, 24; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973], 138) observes, ―there is an unquestionable connection with P. God concludes a covenant (Gen. ix 9), which is a valuable parallel to the oath in Is. liv 9, for the conclusion of a covenant involves an oath… Further, the prophet uses the world just as P does (vs. 11) in opposition with in J (Gen. viii 21). Finally P considers the Noahite covenant as a , just like Dt.-Is. in lv 3 and quoad sensum in liv 10.‖ 405 In fact, the Noah portion of the Torah (6.9–11.32) is still linked with this passage (and its context) in both the Ashkenazic Haftarah (Isa 54.1–55.5) and the Sephardic Haftarah (Isa 54.1-10). 102
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
peace/mercy.406 Therefore, ―[t]he Noachic covenant meant a new beginning after the catastrophe of the flood, and in the same way there can be a new beginning after the catastrophe of the exile.‖407 Near the end of the exile, the Jews were allowed to return to their native land, and some did while others did not (e.g., Neh 1; Esth). It is not a facile matter to precisely determine whether the Priestly writer(s) had moved to Judea when the Flood Narrative was penned or whether P was still in Babylon/Persia when inspired to compose it.408 A. de Pury conjectures, ―it is perhaps more likely that a work so connected with some local preoccupations has been composed in Judaea, even though we cannot know for sure.‖409 Indeed, it does seem most probable that the Priestly writer(s) would gravitate toward Jerusalem—the city of their former temple—and craft a theological treatise as an explanatory matrix, prompted by Isaiah‘s prophetic word, whereby the Jewish remnant could interpret (i.e. make sense out of) their milieu and environs from God‘s perspective.410 For this reason, the preponderance of deductions presumes Jerusalem to be the compositional locale of P‘s Flood Narrative, and the end of the exile as the Flood record‘s occasion.411 If the dawn of the post-exilic era was in sight, then the dating of P‘s Flood chronicle should reflect that. Often the date of P‘s Flood is placed at approximately 500 BCE.412 While precise dating is hardly possible, we concur with A. de Pury who ―opt[s] for dating PG between…535 and 530 [BCE].‖413 This dating spectrum is preferred since the Isa 54.9-10 passage is near the end of the Deutero-Isaianic corpus (chs. 40-55). Further, the above time
406 Cf. Roy F. Melugin, ―Deutero-Isaiah and Form Criticism,‖ VT 21/3 (1971): 337; Eduard Nielsen, ―Deuterojesaja: Erwagungen zur Formkritik, Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte,‖ VT 20/2 (1970): 195-202. 407 Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, 447. Similarly, Westermann (Isaiah 40-66, 275) attests, ―Deutero-Isaiah looks back into the past in search of a turning-point comparable with the one which now confronts Israel, he finds none in the history of Israel itself. He has to go further back to that turning-point in primaeval times which marked the end of catastrophic events involving the whole human race!‖ 408 Cf. Haran, ―Behind the Scenes of History,‖ 321-333. 409 ―PG as the Absolute Beginning,‖ 127. 410 The Tagum of Isa 54.7, for example, reads: ―‗In a little anger I forsook you, but with great compassion I will bring your exiles near‘‖ (Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum [The Aramaic Bible, 11; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1987], 105). Near to God was still conceived by some as residing in Jerusalem. 411 Schmid, Genesis and the Exodus Story, 258; contra Kenton L. Sparks, ―Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,‖ JBL 126/4 (2007) 647: ―It seems to me that P‘s mimetic response to Mesopotamian traditions is, at face value, substantive evidence that the Priestly Writer lived and worked in that eastern context.‖ On the importance of specific locale and social, political and religious dynamics, see Rast, Tradition History, 21, 25. 412 E.g., Kratz (Composition, 246): ―PG should be put in the time around 500 BC (in Jerusalem)‖; Ellis (The Yahwist, 25): ―the Priestly source [is] from Judah around 550 or 500 B.C.‖ Cf. Carr (Reading the Fractures, 136) who insists a date ―no earlier than the late exilic period.‖ 413 ―PG as the Absolute Beginning,‖ 127; idem, ―The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Formation of the Pentateuch‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid), 70. Cf. Guillaume, Land and Calendar, 182-183. 103
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
period is squarely within Cyrus‘ reign (550-530 BCE);414 Cyrus defeated the Babylonians and ushered in the Persian Empire thus putting an end to the Babylonian empire and liberating its exiles—in the first year of his reign, according to the biblical record (Ezra 1; cf. Isa 44-45).415 Thus, the terminus a quo circa 550 BCE and terminus ad quem circa 530 BCE (corresponding to Cyrus‘ reign)416 of the drafting of P‘s independent Flood chronicle poignantly dovetails with the Isaianic prophetic illustration of a remnant (like the family of Noah) emerging from the wake of a death-like experience unto new life.417 Indeed, ―‗Just like Yahwe swore after the flood, that there would be no more flood, so he now swears that he will not punish Israel again with exile.‘‖418 P‘s Flood chronicle being reminiscent of and influenced by prophetic and psalmic material indicates its Sitz im Leben as a religious community. Naturally, it also came from a literate circle not only because of its own account but also because of the other ancient Flood stories that may have likely been consulted (so also with the Sitz im Leben of the Flood expansion units [nP]; see below); the urban—though still reconstructing city (and temple)— of Jerusalem also fits with the notion of a literate circle with written resources and a religio- political message. Not much else can be known for sure about this religious community. 2.2.2.2.2 The Sitz im Leben of nP‟s Material Even though the nP literary material is not an independent textual layer (at least in the Flood Narrative and throughout Gen 1-11) but rather a stratum of supplemental compositions and redactions (see 2.1 and 2.3), nP as a compositor/redactor in a particular physical locale can nonetheless be discerned in its extensions units (Erweiterte Einheite) and extensions (Erweiterungen). In contrast to P which is from the priestly circles, non-P (as the name indicates) derives outside of the priestly cult; also, according to carryover from the Yahwistic (J) source theory, nP is a denizen of the geographical region of (former) Israel/Samaria.419 A cursory historical panorama will serve to set the backdrop of nP‘s setting.
414 L.F. Hartman and A.A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978), 30. Richard J. Clifford (―The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation,‖ TS 46/3 [1985]: 516) asserts, ―Second-Isaiah, [is] the prophet of the 540‘s B.C.‖ 415 A. de Pury ―PG as Absolute Beginning,‖ 127-128. 416 For dating P within the Darius era see, Guillaume, Land and Calendar, 182-187; cf. Rainer Albertz, ―Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1-52.12) in 521 BCE,‖ JSOT 27/3 (2003): 371-383. 417 ―P is obviously addressing his contemporaries‖ (Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 412). 418 Schoors (I Am God Your Saviour, 139) citing Duhm (Das Buch Jesaia [Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, III, 1; Gӧttingen 1902]). Similarly, Bailey (Noah, 188) maintains, ―the exiles‖ would ―sense a parallel between their hopes of return from Babylonia and the survival of Noah‘s family.‖ 419 Though Levin‘s schema of J is different from ours regarding nP, we agree with his following statement: ―the Yahwist was a member of the courtly upper class living in the early Jewish Diaspora, who was trying to find an answer to the radical change in living conditions‖ (―The Yahwist,‖ 230). 104
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Because of Solomon‘s idolatrous downfall God foretold the demise of the (united) Monarchy, specifying that a schism would transpire during the reign of Solomon‘s son and successor Rehoboam (1 Kgs 11.11-13). Indeed, the 10 northern tribes of Israel seceded from the one (or two420) southern tribe(s), as well as from its Davidic kingly heir, through the (human) agency of Jeroboam (see ch.3 2.2.2.2)—all to fulfill the word of the Lord (1 Kgs 14.8-9; 12.20). In order to make the schism absolute, for Jeroboam feared its eventual reuniting on account of Jerusalem being the cultic epicentre, he erected two golden calves, and, declaring them gods, placed one at each of the (new) nation‘s geographical poles: Bethel in the south and Dan in the north (1 Kgs 12.26-30).421 This state of national polytheistic idolatry was essentially static from the schism (c. 930 BCE) to Israel/ Samaria‘s exile (c. 722 BCE). In his global sovereignty Yahweh God caused Assyria to rise in power and domain, and God used the foreign nation of Assyria as the agent for Israel/Samaria‘s covenantal punishment (i.e. curse)—exile (2 Kgs 17.7-24). The method of exile enforced by the Assyrian empire was assimilation. Assimilation is the act whereby percentages of one people group are mixed with fragments of many other peoples forming a melting pot of cultures. Not only were most of the northern Israelites deported to various locations deep within the Assyrian Empire, but other foreign peoples previously defeated were also imported into the land of Israel/Samaria. The effects of assimilation not only deter uprisings because of the near impossibility of unanimity from various people groups of other nations, traditions, and values, but, on the basis of these same factors, religions/theological syncretism was also a pervasive by-product (2 Kgs 17.25-41).422 This background proves valuable when considering the Sitz im Leben of nP‘s Flood Narrative expansions; for, as has already been demonstrated (2.2.1.6), the nP extensions all have a great affinity to key components of other Mesopotamian flood stories. Since the nP compositor hailed from a thoroughly assimilative culture where his own religious schema was in all likelihood a syncretistic compilation of viewpoints, it is reasonable to assert nP wanted P‘s Flood account to resemble, for example, Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh to a
420 Since the tribe and land allotment of Simeon is landlocked within Judah (like modern day Lesotho in South Africa), this composite land mass was often considered one—even, one tribe; for example, ―when all Israel heard that Jeroboam had returned [from banishment in Egypt], they sent and called him to the assembly and made him king over all Israel. There was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only‖ (1 Kgs 12.20). 421 See Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1961), 334-335. 422 Cf. James D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (HSM, 2; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), 92. 105
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
greater degree (e.g., with the door closing, bird sending, sacrifice, etc.).423 The impulse to synthesize a purely Hebraic and monotheistic corpus to portray ancient Near Eastern sentiments was a natural one.424 Indeed, it is apropos that the final form of the Flood Narrative is a synthetic—composite—attestation of the synthetic (assimilatory) cultural milieu of Samaria.425 If the assimilatory literature is directly indicative of the assimilatory cultural milieu of Samaria (along with the incorporation of distinctly parallel Formen from other flood traditions), then it may further be adduced that the location of composition is most possibly either the city of Bethel or Dan,426 since both were previously the northern epicentres of Israel/Samaria which bordered Assyria and later became major cities within the Assyrian Empire and thereby heavily influenced by Mesopotamian culture and religion. Should the foregoing postulations be correct, we believe the time that it took for nP to acquire a copy of P‘s Flood chronicle and thence to create an expanded edition from it would perhaps take the better part of a generation. Under this estimated timeframe, nP‘s final product—which is also the same as the final-form of the Flood—likely came into existence and circulation circa 500 BCE.427 This is an era beyond their exile and the exile of their southern brethren.428 To the matter of Sitz im Leben, it is most likely what E. Nielsen has aptly identified. ―YHWH‘s promise to Noah (8.22), could hardly find a more fitting ‗Sitz im Leben‘ than the New Year Festival in autumn before the beginning of the rains, the New Year Festival whose purpose was to ensure the proper balance between the powers and the perpetuation of life by
423 Cf. Ellis, The Yahwist, 87; A. de Pury, ―PG as Absolute Beginning,‖ 114. 424 Purvis (Samaritan Pentateuch, 7) declares: ―The counterclaim of Orthodox Judaism—that the Samaritans are ethnically impure and religiously corrupt—indicates that Jewish traditions regard the intermarriage of Assyrian colonists and northern Israelites and the subsequent development of a syncretistic Yahwism as the origin of the heresy which caused them so much consternation‖ (cf. 8 n.12). 425 See Hyun Chul Paul Kim (―Form Criticism in Dialogue with Other Criticisms: Building the Multidimensional Structures of Texts and Concepts‖ in Changing Face [eds. M.A. Sweeny and E. Ben Zvi], 94) for discussion on the relationship between the final form of a text and its life setting. 426 If the nP compositor hails from Bethel, could he be one of the tradents of the anonymous figure in 2 Kgs 17.28? 427 Frederick V. Winnett (―Re-examining the Foundations,‖ JBL 84/1 [1965]: 5) postulates: ―It is difficult to believe that Hebrew society produced an author with such an outlook as early as the tenth or ninth century B.C. His profound theology and his subtle adaptation of old myths and legends to serve as vehicles for this theology point to a late date. …he [J/nP] can be dated most appropriately about the time of Deutero-Isaiah or a little later.‖ Cf. Van Seters, ―Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period,‖ VT 22/1 (1972): 459; Carr, Reading the Fractures, 327-331. 428 Blenkinsopp (―Post-exilic lay source,‖ 50-52) vies for a post-exilic, supplemental nP based especially on the related motifs of the curse-of-the-soil (5.29; 8.22) vis-à-vis exile and mankind‘s proclivity of evilness (6.5; 8.21) vis-à-vis covenantal curses for disobedience resulting in expulsion from the land. 106
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ensuring rain and guaranteeing safety from chaos.‖429 Certainly this New Year Festival derives from Mesopotamian culture,430 within which the nP editor was nestled. New Year‘s Day festivities—libations and feasting—moreover, are imbedded in The Epic of Gilgamesh (XI.70-74).431 2.2.2.3 The Intention/Purpose of the Flood Narrative Because the Flood Narrative is a composite saga and because its final form originated in a couple settings,432 the text has a multiplicity of intentions/purposes. 2.2.2.3.1 The Intention/Purpose of P‟s Material One of P‘s primary purposes in writing the Flood account was assuredly to provide for the exiles a treatise concerning Noah and the floodwaters as referenced in the Isaianic prophecy (54.9-10). Since the days and events of Noah serve as a parallel analogy for the remaining time of exile and/or the post-exilic era, this prophetical citation is the catalyst for P‘s 433 Deluge. Not surprising, tyrb (Isa 54.10) is a major theme in P‘s Flood chronicle (Gen 6.14 + 9.8-17); in fact, the covenantal component is so predominate, featuring in both the introduction and the conclusion of the story, that it serves as a framework for understanding P‘s entire record.434 Consequently, S.E. McEvenue advances that through the means of composing the Flood Story ―[w]e see the priestly writer, then, as a scribe in exile, writing a gospel of hope…possibly for the catechesis of younger people.‖435 The catechetic message is: Just as
429 Nielsen, Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction (SBT 11; London: SCM Press LTD, 1954), 101. Cf. W. Brueggemann, ―Kingship and Chaos (A Study in Tenth Century Theology),‖ CBQ 33/3 (1971): 317-332. 430 For background on the Babylonian Akitu Festival and its relation to the annual flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, see J.A. Wagenaar, Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar (BZABR, 6; Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz Verlag, 2005), 108-120. 431 Haupt, ―The Ship of the Babylonian Noah,‖ 7. Carr (Reading the Fractures, 247) believes, ―there are faint echoes of a probable temple context in the non-P primeval history.‖ 432 Aetiological sagas are more concerned with the present rather than the past; see Tucker, Form Criticism, 52; Koch, Growth, 156. 433 Again, that the two bodies of text are to be read together is seen in the longstanding tradition of the Torah portion Gen 6.9–11.32 is thematically linked (Parsha Noach) to the Ashkenazic Haftarah (Isa 54.1–55.5) as well as the Sephardic Haftarah (Isa 54.1-10). 434 There is ―emphasis on the closing passage in such a way as to color the whole narrative; blessing, 9:1-7, and covenant, 9:8-17, show that P‘s real intent lay in theologizing the flood narrative‖ (Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 397). 435 McEvenue, The Narrative Style, 186. McEvenue elaborates (181), All of this activity supposes the particular spirituality of a people who seek (drš) God in written texts, possibly because they can no longer seek him in sacrifice after the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem, or when in exile. …The priestly writer, then, must be imagined among the exiles, some of whom are ready to abandon Yahweh, and their heritage, in favour of Babylon‘s gods, culture, and prosperity (Ez 20,32), but other seek (drš) an oracle from Yahweh by approaching the unique Ezechiel who is both priest and prophet (Ez 14,1-3 ; 20,1-3). So Guillaume, Land and Calendar, 7; Carr, Reading the Fractures, 138-140; Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, 164, 172. 107
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Yahweh God‘s covenantal promise was to never again destroy humanity (via flood), so too will Yahweh God not totally destroy his chosen people (cf. Gen 9.1, 7); just as Noah and his family were providentially delivered from catastrophe, so too will Yahweh God deliver a (Judahite) remnant from exile.436 Another intention of committing the oral Flood story to writing, and writing it the particular way in which P did, must be to (re)instill the remnant-of-Judahites‘ sense of covenant obedience through the prolific command–fulfilment modus found throughout the account.437 If the Judahites were thrust out of the land into exile because of covenantal disobedience, then covenantal obedience must be modelled and relearned; and, through the events of God commanding and exemplar Noah fulfilling (obeying) it entirely, such a catechism is developed.438 This is demonstrated both generally in the saga (e.g., 6.13 || 22) and expressly too, as the text in the graph below illustrates. Command (8.15-17) Fulfilment (8.18-19) Then God said to Noah, ‗Go forth from the ark, you and So Noah went forth, and his sons and your wife, and your sons and your sons' wives with you. his wife and his sons‘ wives with Bring forth with you every living thing that is with you him. And every beast, every creeping of all flesh—birds and animals and every creeping thing thing, and every bird, everything that that creeps on the earth—that they may breed abundantly moves upon the earth, went forth by on the earth, and be fruitful and multiply upon the earth.‘ families out of the ark.
Consequently, the restoration of orthodoxy and orthopraxis is resoundingly broadcasted in the text as well as admonished of the (remnant) people. 2.2.2.3.2 The Intention/Purpose of nP‟s Material The intention or purpose of nP‘s composition and redaction seems to be for purely literary ambitions, meaning that the Gen 6-9* (indeed even Gen 1-11) P text was expanded in order to generate a second edition that was their own, i.e. Northern/ Samaritan.439 Though literary supplementation is executed in various methods—with the majority of expansions brimming with ancient Near Eastern (secular) thought, culture, and literature references—the end product was a synthetic/assimilative contemporizing. And this quality mirrors its very own city-state, culture, and individual lives; the Northerners/ Samaritans where an assimilated
436 ―Aetiology explains isolated phenomena of the present day by an action of the forefathers in the past‖ (Golka, ―Aetiologies; Part 2,‖ 46). See Lohfink‘s helpful discussion regarding P‘s paradigmatic writing style in Theology of the Pentateuch, 161-163, 171-172. Cf. also Walter Brueggemann, ―The Kerygma of the Priestly Writer,‖ ZAW 84/4 (1972): 397-413. 437 Though the Sinaitic/Mosaic Covenant was technically null-and-void as per the exile (Jer 3.8; Isa 50.1), the Judahite remnant nevertheless tried—more earnestly—to fulfil the Law (Ezra-Nehemiah). 438 McEvenue, Narrative Style, 28, 30-31, 60, 66. 439 Blenkinsopp (―Post-exilic lay source,‖ 60) opines, ―the principle aim of the J supplement was to balance the optimism of P with a more sober and secular view of human existence.‖ Cf. however Purvis, Samaritan Pentateuch, 117. 108
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
people with synthetic religious expressions, though well intended they may have been. Thus an expanded and revision edition was inclusive for all the peoples of Israel. 2.2.2.4 The Gattungsgeschichte of the Flood Narrative The Flood Narrative must have been in the repertoire of oral tradition for an extensive period of time as well as undergoing an evolution from its written inception to the final form before us. ―The presence of so many diverse genre elements‖ in the Flood Narrative, G.M. Tucker purports, ―supports the conclusion that the story has indeed passed through a long history of transmission, bringing with it traces of several different environments.‖440 Thus, the history (- geschichte) of the growth of the total type (Gattung) of the story will at this point be examined. In such a sizeable prosaic composition as Gen 6-9* the couple minute portions of poetry register as marked composition (see 2.2.2.1); indeed, poetry amidst large bodies of prose is typically seen diachronically as the most rudimentary bud from which flowers a story.441 In point of fact, both literary strata contain a few stanzas of poetry each; there is a bicolon in 8.22 (nP) and a tricolon in 9.6-7 (P). These terse poetic stanzas are not altogether unique to the book of Genesis; for similar such attestations consider Adam‘s Vow Concerning Eve (2.23), YHWH‘s Curses for the serpent, Eve, and Adam (3.14-15, 16-17, 17b-19), Lamech‘s Taunt (4.23-24), Noah‘s Cursing of Ham (9.26), Melchizedek‘s Blessing of Abram (14.19), the Angel‘s Pronouncement of Ishmael‘s birth (16.11-12), A Blessing of Rebekah (24.60), YHWH‘s Oracle to Rebekah Concerning Jacob and Esau (25.23), Isaac‘s Blessing of Jacob (27.27b-29), Isaac‘s Cursing(?) of Cain (27.39b-40), Jacob/Israel‘s Blessing of Joseph (48.15-16), and Jacob/ Israel‘s Blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh (48.20).442 This appraisal shows that other than the poeticizing of a very significant event in the (near) future (e.g., births), the preponderance of brief poetic hemistiches in Genesis centre around blessings and curses—and both Gen 8.22 and 9.6-7 fall essentially within these categories. Gen 8.22 is the promised blessing of constantly recurrent seasons and crop production, YHWH having just previously removing the curse from the ground; and Gen 9.6-7 is fundamentally a curse upon any murderer of mankind (v.6) and a blessing upon all humanity to be fruitful and increase (v.7). If these two fragments of poetry are the most
440 Form Criticism, 48. 441 Cf. Gunkel, Genesis, xxvi; Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 63. 442 The only other poetic feature to Genesis is the rather long Blessing of Jacob/Israel to his Sons in 49.1b-27. 109
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
possible earliest so-called kernels of each tradition,443 then its contents convey a refined, perspectival vantage of the Flood‘s kerygma and a distinct cultural mind-set of Judea and Samaria.
2.3 Komposition/Redaktionskritik Komposition/Redaktionskritik is concerned with [1] ascertaining the matrix whereby textual units were assembled and moulded into the piece of literature known as the final form of the Flood Narrative;444 [2] ―determin[ing] which religio-theological factors have had an influence on the compositional and redactional activities‖445; [3] evaluating the Sitz in der Literatur of Gen 6-9* in its larger literary complex. 2.3.1 Non-P as Composer and Redactor of a Priestly Grundschicht Non-P is both composer and redactor in the same editorial gesture;446 for, in the Flood Narrative ―P has taken precedence and J [i.e., nP] has been worked into P‘s basic material. P is preserved in large coherent blocks‖ throughout Gen 1-11.447 Non-P‘s Komposition and Redaktion is achieved through three techniques; these redactional techniques employed by nP are (1) textual supplementation via the means of crafting chiasm (6.5-8; 7.22-23; 8.20-22), (2) the interweaving technique (7.1-10,12 + 7.11,13-16a; 8.6-12,13b + 8.13a,14-19) along with its resumptive repetition of terms and/or phrases, and (3) simple insertions (e.g., 7.16b; 8.2b-3a). 2.3.1.1 Composition/Redaction via Constructing Chiasmus Some of the more masterful editorial/redactional work is through the construction of chiasms, whether thematic or semantic.448 When, for example, the nP redactor/ compositor wanted to add another beginning to the Flood story (unit A; 6.5-8), one which represented his own theological perspective, he wished to incorporate the material as non-intrusively as possible.
443 Cf. Knierim, ―Reconsidered,‖ 443-445. 444 Cf. Lawson G. Stone, ―Redaction Criticism: Whence, Whither, and Why? Or Going Beyond Source and Form Criticism Without Leaving Them Behind,‖ LTQ 27/4 (1992): 112; Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 53. 445 Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, 111. 446 Emerton (―Examination, Part I,‖ 402) attests, ―those who believe that the flood narrative is the result of the combination of two sources believe, ex hypothesi, that there was a redactor‖ (cf. ―Examination, Part II,‖ 14). Norman E. Wagner (―A Response to Professor Rolf Rendtorff,‖ JSOT 3 [1977]: 26) proclaims: ―My post- exilic Yahwistic writer was a theologian, one who compiled material and augmented it with a very clear purpose.‖ Cf. Levin, ―The Yahwist,‖ 226. 447 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 396. Steck (Old Testament Exegesis, 82) notes additionally that the ―first written version can be a codification, in which the form of the first written rendering…corresponds precisely with the final oral stage.‖ 448 So Emerton, ―Examination, Part II,‖ 3; Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 79: ―The ancient reader recognized the redactional meaning by continuous reading of the writing, above all, in the macrostructural and in the microstructural position in which the redactionally revising statements are placed. These statements are recognized especially at the…beginning and end of the major section of the writing.‖ 110
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
In order to achieve a near seamless fusion nP ordered the elements comprising his material in reverse order from P; so when melded together with P material the whole would resemble a thematic chiasm.449 Problem [6.5-7] Exception {Noah} [6.8] ------Exception {Noah} (to the) [6.9-10] Problem [6.11-13]
Since the pre-existing P introduction which was before the nP editor disclosed the personage of Noah first and then how he was the righteous exception to the widespread problem of corruption, the nP redactor/compositor accordingly recorded his introduction with basically the same component parts, though in the inverse manner: the problem is humanity‘s wholesale evilness, save Noah.450 The end result of this redacting effort is the production of a thematic, hybrid chiasm, that is, a seamless, ring structure. The same redactional technique has been implemented for the conclusion of the Flood Narrative (unit D; 8.20-22). The nP compositor had before him Gen 9.1-17, whose broad narrative movement communicates blessing then covenant. Henceforth, the redactor reversed the thematic contents when composing his epilogue, sacrifice then blessing, in order to craft an overall chiastic conclusion.451 Sacrifice [8.20] Blessing (of ground) [8.21-22] ------Blessing (of living creatures) [9.1-7] Covenant [9.8-17] In total there is a blessing pronounced over the ground and all living creatures. Also, God‘s unconditional promise to Noah and every species of fauna is constituent of God‘s unilateral covenant; and, by portraying Noah as a righteous, God-pleaser when he sacrificed clean animals the redactor foreshadows the Sinaitic/Mosaic Covenant, which has animal sacrifice as its crux. As previously demonstrated (2.1.1), nP‘s description of the Deluge‘s destruction (unit F; 7.22-23) is a fulfillment of the catalyst in the nP introduction (which is summarized again in the conclusion). Now through the Komposition/Redaktionskritik lens, it is striking how the nP redactor/compositor again interjects his expansions through the fabrication of a chiasmus in cooperation with P text.
449 Cf. Bailey, Noah, 152-153. 450 ―Together these two justifications for the deluge (6:5-6 and 6:11-12) create a binocular effect‖ (Arnold, Genesis, 98). 451 Cf. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, 188. 111
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
A And all flesh died [(wg] that moved upon the earth, B birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, C and every man; (7.21) ------D everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. D` He blotted out [hxm] every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, C` man B` and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; A` they were blotted out [hxm] from the earth. (7.22-23a) What lay before the redactor/compositor was the contents of (our) 7.21, so nP achieves the
√hxm fulfilment from unit A (6.5-8) by elaborating upon the flood‘s effects through supplying further narrative. In this case, the point of departure from P does not provide half a chiasm from which to work, nevertheless nP has innovatively composed what becomes both inner parts of the chiastic unit (D, D`) as well as the remaining corollary component elements (C`,B`, A`). 2.3.1.2 Composition/Redaction via Interweaving and Resumptive Repetition The P text runs uninterrupted from (our) 6.9-22 to 7.11,13-16a and following. Yet, the nP redactor wanted to provide a perhaps contrasting,452 perhaps supplemental version to P‘s exposition (6.9-22); so, nP transcribes 7.1-10,12 (unit B) which has the Divine name YHWH, clean and unclean animals distinctions, and the reference to rainfall—all preferable to nP. After writing 7.1-10,12 the nP editor/redactor sets out to interweave this literary piece into the P tradition. Thence, the redactor/compositor pulls 7.11 away from 7.13-16a, as it were, as well as unravelling 7.12 from 7.1-10; at this point the first sentence of P‘s paragraph, 7.11, can be weaved, as if under-over, together with 7.12, the last sentence of nP‘s textual unit.
nP 7.1-10 7.12 P 7.11 7.13-16a
Therefore, the two units 7.11,13-16a and 7.1-10,12 are bound together by unravelling the first and last verse and then interlacing or interlocking these small fragments uniting the larger parts. A complimentary redactional feature in interweaving the composite 7.11,13-16a and 7.1-10,12 (unit B) is the resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) technique.453 By repeating key phrases the editor resumes the narrative from whence it departed. The particular phrases
452 Carr (Reading the Fractures, 47) explains this as a ―counternarrative apparently designed to replace‖ the material of the other hand (though he takes nP as having priority). 453 Ska, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 17; Carr, Reading the Fractures, 28; Cf. Moshé Anbar, ―La ‗Reprise‘,‖ VT 38/4 (1988): 385-398. 112
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
in the P account which the nP redactor parrots, in order to more effectively integrate his own material, is the obedience report (6.22 + 7.5) and the Deluge‘s start date (7.6 + 7.11).454 P nP …xn #(yw (6.22) …xn #(yw (7.5) xn-yyxl hn# tw)m-## tn#b (7.11) hn# tw)m ##-Nb xnw (7.6)
Consequently, the nP interweaving redactional activity is buttressed by resumption. It is also by resumptive redaction that the nP editor integrates the bird sending episode (unit C; 8.6-12,13b). The P text unvaryingly presents the floodwaters abating and evaporating, and subsequently disembarkation events (8.3b-5; 8.13a,14-19). Non-P, wanting to inject the birds sending episode (8.6-12,13b), mirrors the terminology of P in 8.5 where the mountaintops became visible (√h)r) so as to resume back into the P narrative; so, as long as nP reiterates how more physical features become seen (√h)r, 8.13bβ) after the birds-sending (8.6-12), the latter prose can be incorporated relatively seamlessly.
A Mountaintops visible [h)r] (by narrator) [8.5] ------B Noah opens window of [8.6] C Raven is sent forth yet does not return [8.7] D Dove is sent forth and returns [8.8-9] D` Dove is sent forth and returns [8.10-11] C` Dove is sent forth yet does not return [8.12] B` Noah removes roof of [8.13bα] A` Ground viewed [h)r] by Noah [8.13bβ] ------This resumptive repetition is again aiding the redactional technique of interweaving literary units together—which in this case also completes a chiasmus.
nP 8.6-12 8.13b P 8.3b-5 8.13a 8.14-19
The redactor separates 8.13a from 8.14-19 and slides the resumptive repetition of 8.13b in between; as a result, the conflation piece 8.6-12 can precede 8.13a without glaring wrinkles in the composite text. 2.3.1.3 Composition/Redaction via Simple Insertion Other instances of redaction need not wield such eloquence; in some occasions straightforward insertion can be effected without a conspicuous rupture in the flow of the narrative. The auxiliary detail of YHWH closing the door of the (7.16b) does paint a fuller picture of the embarking process and is therefore inserted (however, this must have been one of the first additions the redactor/compositor made for it is synchronous only when
454 Here, nP arranges his flood date before P‘s hence making it seem that P is resuming from nP; however, the opposite is true. Cf. Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 58. 113
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
the P account is not tampered, yet is anachronic with the nP 7.1-10,12 conflation).455
Additionally, nP wanted to reiterate the falling of rain (#mg) to continue what had previously been added in 7.1-10,12; so nP can infuse 8.2b-3a, with its parlance of #mg, in a non-intrusive manner. Thus the whole of the non-P material and the redaction thereof is accounted for. 2.3.2 Religio-theological Factors of Redactional Composition The foregone process of compositional and redactional concerning conflated textual units into the Flood Narrative‘s basic layer (Grundschicht) has been discussed. Next, the religio- theological orientation of the biblical author(s)/redactor(s) will be substantiated to determine the amount of influence they have had on the crafting of their textual parts with its specialized lexemes imbedded therein. 2.3.2.1 Socio-religious motives of the P(riestly) Source Since the Priestly Writer has produced a complete and independent narrative source, its socio-religio-theological intentions ought to be straightforward disclosure. 2.3.2.1.1 God‟s Universal Sovereignty (cf. 1.2.3.1.3) ―Overall,‖ D.M. Carr declares, ―the world of P is one in which God is unmistakeably sovereign.‖456 When the flood does come, it is depicted as a cosmic, cataclysmic event where the lattices of heaven are flung upon and the abyss (Mwht) burst open and a deluge issues from both with seismic force (7.11; 8.2a).457 The Flood, moreover, is depicted as an undoing or reversal of creation (cf. 1.2),458 for the firmament no longer separates the waters below from the waters above (1.1–2.4a || 7-8*).459 The de-creation then segues unto re-creation; and Gen 8.1 is the watershed whereupon God begins his new creative acts. Like the beginning
(ty#)rb), the world is one watery mass (7.24 || 1.2); also, the wind/spirit (xAw@r) of God passes over the floodwaters with the result of drying it, just as the wind/spirit (xAw@r) of God was hovering over the pre-creation watery mass (8.1 || 1.2). Eventually the floodwaters completely evaporated and the two cosmic bodies of water are again separated, just as they were separated on the second day of creation (8.1-12 || 1.6-8). In the end, dry land emerges, as it had at creation (8.13-14 || 1.9-10), vegetation sprouts forth on the land (8.11 || 1.11-13),
455 See Ska, Exegesis of the Pentateuch, 18-19. 456 Carr, Reading the Fractures, 128. 457 Hiebert, Yahwist‟s Landscape, 51. 458 Childs, Myth and Reality, 33-42; Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 88. 459 ―The function of the (yqr is to separate heavenly and earthly waters which, if allowed to flow together, would bring destruction as occurred in the flood (Gen. 1:7, 7:11). The flood returned the world to the pre-creation state of one large ocean. Interestingly the (yqr is not mentioned in the flood as its function appears to have been temporarily suspended.‖ (Harland, The Value of Human Life, 92). 114
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
and man and animal occupy the dry ground (8.15-19 || 1.24-28). The textual thematic movement of both chs.1 and 7-8, therefore, is creation–de-creation–re-creation.460 2.3.2.1.2 Covenant (cf. 1.1.2.6; 1.2.6.2 & 2.2.1.2.1) The (re)new(ed) creation and (re)new(ed) relationship of God is inaugurated in 9.1-17 with a 461 covenant. The first occurrence of tyrb in the Hebrew Bible is the place where God foretells the establishment of one with Noah and family462 and a representation of all animals, after their experience (6.18).463 This promise guarantees that every living creature in the will be kept alive through the entire endeavour (6.19). Indeed, God‘s raising of a covenant comes to pass, yet not before a blessing of the Adamic timbre in 9.1, 7.464 That this covenant was ―established‖ (√Mwq [6.18; 9.9, 11]) instead of (literally) ―cut‖ (trk), as is typical, is meaningful,465 for it conveys that the covenant of Gen 9 is unilateral (vs. suzerain 466 in nature)—the tyrb is God‘s. 2.3.2.1.3 Divine Architecture (cf. 1.2.3.6; 1.2.6.4) It is from the Priestly account where oration is given of Divine blueprints for the construction of the (6.14-16). The only other time in the Hebrew Bible where the construction of an object was commanded by God according to Divine specifications is the tabernacle (and the contents therein) in the latter part of Exodus,467 which is from the Priestly corpora (PG +
460 So Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch (JSOTSup, 10; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982), 73-77; idem, ―Theme in Genesis 1-11,‖ CBQ 38/4 (1976) 483-507. See also Turner, Genesis, 49; Anderson, ―From Analysis To Synthesis,‖ 39; Larsson, ―Chronological Parallels Between the Creation and the Flood,‖ VT 27/4 (1977): 490-492; Simoons-Vermeer, ―Mesopotamian Floodstories,‖ 32-33; Moye, ―In the Beginning,‖ 586-587; Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11 (London: T&T Clark, 2011). 461 Significantly, tyrb occurs seven times in Gen 9; cf. Van Wolde, Words Become Worlds, 79. 462 See S. Van Den Eynde, ―Between Rainbow and Reform: A Gender Analysis of the Term tyrb in the Hebrew Bible,‖ ZAW 116/3 (2004): 409-415. 463 Cf. Harland, Value of Human Life, 129. 464 ―The covenant between man and God symbolizes, furthermore, a new relationship between the Deity and His world‖ (Sarna, Understanding Genesis [The Melton Research Center Series, 1; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966], 56). Cf. Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 372; Firmage, ―Genesis 1,‖ 102. 465 Cassuto (Genesis; pt.2, 68) asserts, ―a distinction has to be drawn between ‗making [literally: ―cutting‖] a covenant‘ and ‗establishing a covenant‘: making a covenant means the giving of an undertaking by the parties to the covenant; whilst establishing a covenant signifies to fulfil and implement this undertaking.‖ Cf. also William K. Gilders ―Sacrifice before Sinai and the Priestly Narratives‖ in The Strata of the Priestly Writings (eds. S. Shectman and J.S. Baden), 60. 466 Cf. Arnold, Genesis, 100-102. 467 Thomas Pola (Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von PG [WMANT 70; Neukirchen-Vyuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995], 367) has tabulated the linguistic similarities between God‘s command to build the in Genesis and the tabernacle in Exodus: Gen 6.13, 14, 15 (17-20, 21), 22; 7.6 || Ex 25.1, 8a, 9 (29.45f.); 40.16, 17a. See also Blenkinsopp, ―The Structure of P,‖ CBQ 38/3 (1976): 277, 283, 286; Carr, Reading the Fractures, 131. 115
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
S 468 P ). The most sacred item of the tabernacle complex is the Nwr) of the covenant, and this may have also been the original P term for Noah‘s vessel before the post/non-Priestly redactional activity; for, a harmonious dissemination of Divine structures would naturally contain congruous terminology (see further ch.3 2.3). As it is, this is a fascinating dimension to P—both structures are sanctuaries (see ch.6)!469 2.3.2.2 Socio-religious motives of the non-P(riestly) Strata The non-P redactional stratum has its own socio-religious and theological intentions as well. Because the nP stratum was the non-indigenous text incorporated into the Flood Narrative Grundschicht its socio-religious implications are consequently at the fore.470 2.3.2.2.1 The Lord‟s Mercy (cf. 1.2.3.1.2 & 2.2.1.1.2) In nP‘s introduction (6.5-8) and conclusion (8.20-22), the proclivities of man for evilness are accentuated (cf. 6.1-4). Thus, YHWH is holy and cannot abide evil. Because man is evil (6.5) he must be blotted out (6.7 [7.4]), and when he is blotted out (7.23x2) YHWH accepts that they will always be evil anyway (8.21). Nevertheless, sets of humans (sets of clean animals, and pairs of unclean animals) are spared from annihilation. With this salvation in view YHWH‘s mercy is highlighted.471
468 Childs (The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary [OTL; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1974], 529) states, ―There has been a consensus for well over a hundred years in assigning chs.25-31 to the Priestly source.‖ More recently, Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 63-66; cf. Thomas B. Dozeman, Exodus (ECC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 577. 469 Andreas Schüle (Die Urgeschichte [Gen 1-11] [Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009], 123-124) states the Genesis wiederum findet sich eine Parallele in der Beauftragung des Mose, das Zeltheiligtum der Israeliten exakt nach Gottes Modell zu bauen (Ex 25,9). Dies verweist darauf, dass «Schöpfung» nicht ein einsames Geschehen am Anfang ist, sondern ein Teil des gestaltenden, ordnenden und im Fall der Arche schützenden Handelns Gottes. Innerhalb der Priesterschrift sind die Erschaffung der Welt sowie der Bau der Arche und des Zeltheiligtums gleichsam Stützpfeiler nicht nur der Erzählung selbst, sondern ebenso ihrer theologischen Tiefendimension. In alledem entwirft die Priesterschrift ein Charakterbild Gottes, wenngleich dies nie auf die Ebene einer Gotteslehre gehoben wird. Cf. Erich Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut: Studien zu Text, Kontexten und Rezeption der Fluterzӓhlung Genesis 6-9 (BWANT, 165; Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2005), 127-130. See also Harl, ―Le Nom,‖ 17- 24, 37-40; Kenton L. Sparks, ―Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,‖ JBL 126/4 (2007): 638 for Mesopotamian correlation of the same. 470 Baden (J, E, and the Redaction, 202) states the ―later document must have been aware of its predecessors, and written with the purpose of updating them according to the new religious concepts embodied in the new document.‖ This is the well-stated motive, we purport, of the nP compositor/redactor, not the P document as Baden has in mind. 471 ―The emphasis of Gen 6:8 is on God‘s pity and mercy in delivering Noah. It does not say that Noah is righteous, but rather shows God‘s grace, which is based on his plan for mankind‖ (J.P. Harland, Value of Human Life, 51). Cf. Clines, The Theme of the Pentateuch, 64-73; idem, ―Theme,‖ 490-499. 116
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.3.2.2.2 Righteousness/Favour (cf. 1.2.3.2.1) The reason Noah found favour in YHWH‘s eyes (6.8) was because he was righteous in his generation (7.1).472 Regardless of whether or not nP latched onto this concept because P had already asserted it in 6.9 this is of utmost importance to the editor—note the emphasis via 473 syntactical disjunction: .hwhy yny(b Nx )cm xnw (6.8); .hzh rwdb ynpl qydc yty)r Kt)-yk (7.1b).474 Fronting the proper noun/pronoun makes these sentences marked. Noah‘s righteousness/favour was demonstrated all throughout the Flood events by obedience, yet most especially, in nP‘s perspective, when Noah offered a sacrifice to YHWH.475 Though the Lord commanded Noah to take extra clean animals, Noah voluntarily 476 offered them as sacrifice. The effect it had on YHWH was xxynh xyr-t). ―xaxoyni xayrIi is the technical term of an acceptable sacrifice to God, lit. ‗odour of soothing‘;‖477 indeed, for a sacrifice to be a soothing aroma unto YHWH is the goal of sacrifice. Thus, any ―Israelite reader would have judged Noah by the standards of his own day and these would no doubt have included cultic acceptability.‖478 2.3.2.2.3 Land, and the Irrigation Thereof (cf. 1.2.4.3; 1.2.4.4; 1.2.6.1)
The ground, hmd), is a crucial element of the Israelites‘ religio-theological culture, agrarian society that they were. To give a brief panorama: Lamech said Noah will relieve the curse on the ground (5.29), the ground that was pronounced cursed by YHWH in Eden (3.17),479 the land that is ever in view throughout the events surrounding the Flood (6.7; 7.4, 8, 23; 8.8, 13b, 21),480 the ground from which YHWH does lift the curse in 8.21. Thus, Noah‘s ―righteousness and devotion have moved God to terminate the curse on arable land and to stabilize the agricultural seasons and their harvests.‖481 With the curse of 3.17 reversed,
472 ―This is the only place in the Old Testament where righteousness and finding favour are equated‖ (Harland, Value of Human Life, [65-]66). 473 Cf. Bandstra, Genesis 1-11, 350. Mp indicates there are three verses (Gen 6.8, 7.6; Ezek 14.20) which commence with xnw. 474 See Clark, ―The Righteousness of Noah,‖ VT 21/3 (1971): 261-280. 475 Wenham (―Method,‖ 98) believes ―Noah is viewed as an archetype of the righteous Israelite, for whom sacrifice would have been essential.‖ P does not include animal sacrifice in his story because he wants to save that concept for when it is inaugurated at Sinai with the Aaronic priesthood. 476 Kawashima, ―Homo Faber,‖ 498. 477 Snaith, Hebrew Text of Genesis I-VIII, 53. There are 42 times throughout Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Ezekiel this phrase (in some form of construct, with or without defective spelling) is present always referring to cultic sacrifice. 478 Harland, Value of Human Life, 63. 479 Hiebert, Yahwist‟s Landscape, 45. 480 ―Throughout the flood story, the Yahwist focuses, as always, on arable land, , (6:7; 7:4, 23; 8:8, 13b)‖ (Hiebert, Yahwist‟s Landscape, 50). P only pens hmd) twice: 6.20; 9.2. 481 Hiebert, Yahwist‟s Landscape, 47. See also John Martin, ―A Famine Element in the Flood Story,‖ JBL 45 (1926): 129-133. 117
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
YHWH promises: ―While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease‘‖ (8.22).482 This agricultural blessing was foreshadowed as early as when the dove deposited the olive branch (tyz-hl() unto Noah‘s securing (8.11). The fig, the fruit of the olive branch which ripens during summertime (8.22),483 is a large part of the Israelite socio-religious culture; for, oil from the olive branches were used for fuel for the tabernacle lamps which burned continually (Ex 27.20; Lev 24.2), and it was anointing oil in the priestly circles (Ex 30.22-25ff.).484 For every sacrifice requisite of the Sinaitic/Mosaic Covenant it was integral that the land be fertile, which necessitates the irrigation thereof. So it is only natural for nP, when redacting the Flood account, to create a rain motif. Non-P‘s first mention of rain in the Flood
Narrative is 7.4a: ―For in seven days I will send rain [r+m] upon the earth forty days and forty nights.‖ Previously, nP recorded that in Eden ―no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain [r+m] upon 485 the earth, and there was no man to till the ground‖ (2.5). Instead, ―a mist [d)] went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground‖ (2.6). M.G. Kline translates and interprets Gen 2.6 as how ―flooding waters began to rise from the earth and watered all the face of the ground,‖ taking d)iI as ―probably denot[ing] subterranean waters which rise to the surface and thence as gushing springs or flooding rivers inundate the land.‖486 If Kline is 487 accurate, this has congruence to P‘s Mwhtdescription, albeit to a much milder extent. Thus 2.5(-6) anticipates 7.4; however, throughout the remainder of the Flood 488 Narrative nP employs #mg, ―rain‖ (7.12; 8.2b), instead of r+m. ―According to J,‖ Stenmans
482 Cf. Volkmar Fritz, ―»Solange die Erde steht« – Vom Sinn der jahwistischen Fluterzählung in Gen 6- 8,‖ ZAW 94/4 (1982): 599-614. 483 Hiebert, Yahwist‟s Landscape, 46-47. For Cyq (―summer, summer-fruit‖) in particular see Frank M. Cross Jr. and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence (AOS, 36; New Haven, Conn.: AOS, 1952), 47. 484 Non-P develops the agricultural motif further when depicting Noah as a horticulturalist in 9.18-29. Cf. Hiebert, Yahwist‟s Landscape, 48-50. 485 Blenkinsopp (The Pentateuch) senses ―a note of bitter irony in the sending of rain (7:4), since, according to the same putative J source, the absence of rain had been a major problem at the very beginning of human history (Gen 2:5).‖ 486 Kline, ―Because It Had Not Rained,‖ WTJ 20 (1958): 150-151, 150 n.9. Alternatively, Max Rogland, ―Interpreting d) in Genesis 2.5-6: Neglected Rabbinic and Intertextual Evidence,‖ JSOT 34/2 (2010): 379-393. 487 So E.A. Speiser, ―‟ED in the Story of Creation,‖ BASOR 140 (1955): 9-11; cf. William L. Holladay, ―‘Ereṣ—Underworld: Two More Suggestions,‖ VT 19/1 (1969): 123-124. 488 These two are the only occasions wherein this term is used in the Pentateuch, save Lev 26.4 where God indicates rain is a blessing of covenant obedience. This blessing is reminiscent of Gen 8.22. 118
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
says, ―this rain is the water from the mabbûl, the heavenly ocean.‖489 From an agrarian viewpoint rain, over against tumultuous torrents, devastating breakers, and gushes from the abyss (so P), has great significance both in the sustenance of life, via crops and food, and even has import for cultic worship. Thus, ―rain‖ is sprinkled throughout nP texts (7.12; 8.2b), rain which stimulates successful crops, the likes of which is promised by YHWH in 8.22. 2.3.3 Sitz in der Literatur: Gen 6-9* vis-à-vis The Primordial History (Gen 1-11) Heretofore mentioned has been made to other literary units outside the Flood Narrative throughout the discussion of Literarkritik, Formen/Gattungskritik, and Komposition/ Redaktionskritik; in fact, Gen 6-9* is just one unit amongst the larger literary block of Gen 1- 11. Hence at this juncture the Flood Narrative‘s position within and relationship to the Primeval History (Urgeschichte) literary block (Gen 1-11) shall be addressed. Gen 1-11 has long been regarded as a large, integrated, and self-standing literary unit.490 This is evidenced particularly by the other ancient Near Eastern mythological cycles, which contain much similar content and in basically the same order; for example, the traditions of Akkadia (Sumerian King List–Sumerian Flood Story), Babylonia (Enuma Elish– Gilgamesh Epic & Babyloniaka), and Mesopotamia (―The Eridu Genesis‖) all contain the following progression of data: a creation story, no more than ten kings before the Flood, a Deluge, more kings after the Flood, and the establishment of cities and civilizations. Though there are additional similar and dissimilar sub-themes,491 the above corroboration nevertheless necessitates viewing the story of the biblical Deluge as part of the whole in its literary block. The other textual units of the Gen 1-11 literary block are narratives of creation, viticulture, Babel, as well as two sets of genealogies; these units are all shorter and generally transcriptionally unadulterated than the large, composite Flood. It is poignant that P and nP do not ordinarily record the same material,492 yet they both contribute heavily to the Flood. Thus situated in roughly the middle of Gen 1-11, the Flood Narrative appears to be the crux interpretivum of that literary block.
489 Stenmans, ―#mg,‖ TDOT, 8:63. Baden (J, E, and the Redaction, 200-201) comments,―if we feel compelled to find dependence in the use of this term [lw@b@ma] in both J and P, we might be best served, in fact, to see J‘s unique use of the term as the development from the original and more common priestly use!‖ 490 See e.g., see Andreas Schüle, Die Urgeschichte; Markus Witte, Die biblische Urgeschichte; Rendsburg, Redaction of Genesis (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1986), 7-25. 491 Cf. e.g., Ronald Douglas Emery, Method in Comparisons of Atrahasis and the Genesis Flood Account (M.A. Thesis: Florida State University, 1992), 54-110. 492 Even in their respective genealogies there are either different forms of names (in chs.4, 5), not to mention nP‘s propensity to give terse anecdote concerning notable personages. 119
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
nP - Garden Genealogy Flood Viticulturalist Babel Genealogy (2.4b–3.24) (4) (6-8*) (9*) (10*) (11*) P Creation - Genealogy Flood - - Genealogy (1.1–2.4a) (5*) (6-9*) (10* & 11*)
In present scholarship the consensus is that the literary block of Gen 1-11 was the last to be composed and affixed as a preface to what had already been fused (i.e., redacted) together,493 namely Gen 12-50 and Ex–(2)Kgs.494 ―L‘intégration de la Genèse dans l‘Ennéateuque présuppose le document sacerdotal, le premier à avoir effectué, sur le plan littéraire, le lien entre les Patriarches et Moïse.‖495 Consequently, with the appending of Genesis, as K. Schmid writes, a ―two part picture of salvation history (Genesis–Joshua) and judgment history (Judges–2 Kings) first arises with the placement of *Genesis before *Exodus (and following).‖496 (And this leads us to our second text: Ex 2*.)
2.4 Summary By way of summarizing the diachronic exegesis the following deductions can be made. The textus receptus of Gen 6-9* is a reliable document whose textual complications do not obscure reading or meaning. The Flood Narrative contains disunities, namely two beginnings to the story and two conclusions. Thus two source/authorial layers are present in the Flood: the Priestly base text (6.9-22; 7.11,13-16a, 17b-21; 7.24–8.2a, 8.3b-5, 13a,14-19; 9.1-17) and the non-Priestly redactions (6.5-8; 7.1-10,12, 16b-17a, 22-23; 8.2b-3a, 6-12,13b, 20-22). The form and thus genre of P‘s literary material is chronicle, and the genre of the nP expansion units are myth. When viewed not separately but as a composite whole the overall genre of the Flood is saga (Sage). Moreover, the composite Flood account has thoroughgoing parallels with several deluge stories from a few other cultures at various times. The Priestly writer composed his text of the Flood in Jerusalem circa 530 BCE for the purpose of interpolating the recent experience of being liberated from exile as a new start, just as Noah and family started afresh after emerging from the saving vessel—God had brought the exiles safely through that state symbolic of national death to new life. The impetus for the Flood composition was a working metaphor from Deutero-Isaiah‘s prophecy
493 Westermann, Genesis 1-11, 2; Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, 139. 494 Schmid, Genesis and the Exodus Story, 151-155; idem, ―Genesis in the Pentateuch‖ in The Book of Genesis (eds. C.A. Evans, J.N. Lohr, and D.L. Petersen), 27-50; J.C. Gretz, ―The Formation of the Primeval History,‖ in The Book of Genesis (eds. C.A. Evans, J.N. Lohr, and D.L. Petersen), 107-135. Cf. Abela, Anthony, ―Is Genesis the Introduction of the Primary History?‖ in Studies in the Book of Genesis (ed. A. Wénin), 397- 406. 495 Römer, ―La construction du Pentateuque,‖ 24. 496 Schmid, Genesis and the Exodus Story, 149. 120
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
of Isa 54.9-10. Later a non-Priestly compositor expanded portions of the story and inserted unique material into the P‘s Flood chronicle undertaking the redacting process all the while; this took place circa 500 BCE. Non-P‘s motive, or intention, for the conflations was to contemporize the text and cause it to reflect the wealth of other ancient Flood stories, which were mythic in genre, thus commending the Hebrew Flood story amongst its cultural counterparts. An innate purpose of composition/ redaction was due in part by nP hailing from Israel/Samaria (potentially Bethel or Dan) where assimilation of religions, traditions, etc. had been the cultural milieu since (and compulsion prior to) Israel‘s assimilatory exile enforced by the Assyrians (722 BCE). Ultimately, the theo-religious implication of the Flood account‘s final form is to convey the timeless truth of God‘s providence, provision, and protection.
121
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER 3
MOSES’ TEBĀH (EXODUS 2*)
In the previous chapter was assessed in its most ubiquitous literary context, the Flood Narrative of Gen 6-9*. Here, in this chapter, the only other text in which features is analyzed. Whereas Ex 2 attests only two occurrences (vv.2, 5) of said object, it nevertheless is significant to the present thesis—especially considering the vast amount of differences, and similarities, between the two accounts.
0. Textkritik Initially, the Ex 2 text must be established for the exegetical methodologies to be employed thereafter. The function of Textkritik is [1] to ascertain, insofar as possible, the autograph by reconstructing, with the aid of textual family witness interlocutors, the most probable original text; [2] to tabulate para-textual phenomena; [3] to translate the text, reflective of abovementioned variables. 0.1 Witnesses from Textual Families 2.1a G. Quell (BHS editor for the Book of Exodus) comments on the description of Moses
mother which is limited to simply ywIlIi-tb@a-t)e; perhaps the text is missing her proper
name. Comparing Ex 6.20, dbekewOy, Jochebed, and MrFm;(a, Amram, feature as the names of the parents. Since both proper nouns are absent (Amram and Jochebed), as opposed to one or the other, however, it is more probable the questioned data was never present in the text rather than the phenomenon of two missing words in one verse. Thus the principle lectio brevior is observed here. 2.1b The Septuagint records tw=n qugate/rwn, ―of the daughters of….‖ This Greek witness makes the subject definite and plural (the daughters of Levi) whereas the MT conveys an indefinite, singular subject (a daughter of Levi). The LXX consequently implies Jochebed to be not the only daughter of Levi; this may also be deduced from the indefinite syntax of Num 26.59: Iwxabed quga/thr Leui. Ultimately, the daghesh
122
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
in the bêt of tb@a indicates convincingly that the definite article ( %ha) is subsumed within the morphology of the word;1 consequently, the definiteness ought to be maintained.
2.3 SP and LXX add wOm@)i which differs only slightly from MT wOl. The former is the object marker and goes un-translated while the latter is most often the preposition translated 2 ―to;‖ however, another function of l is as an indirect object marker, thus yielding the translation ―and she took him‖. While the function of the inseparable preposition might legitimately be synonymous to the direct object marker, this is still not, at any
rate, the intention of the syntax. The phrase has as its direct object hbt; ―him,‖ i.e. the infant, is the indirect object. As a result the clause yields the meaning, ―she took for
him [wOl] a papyrus …‖ Therefore, the grammar is not problematic, and emendation is evaded.
2.4 SP has bc1ayAt;t@iwA which more clearly exhibits the Hithpael stem morphologically as 3 opposed to MTs bc1atat@iIwA. This minor discrepancy is likely borne out of a faulty- hearing scribal error (MT) from the correct morphology (SP). The recommended emendation is accepted.
2.5 The Leningrad Codex and many edited Hebrew manuscripts possess the (.) at the end of this sentence, yet the BHS editor deletes it. It appears G. Quell does not
want to detach the quick pace of the three verbs in the series (wh)rtw xtptw hxqtw), which may essentially constitute one compounded action. Nevertheless, the burden of evidence is in favour of keeping the , and so it is retained (see immediately below). a 2.6 Whereas MT records xt@ap;t@iwA, SP has the feminine pronominal suffix hfxe_f affixed to the
verb. In the three verb series (delineated above) the previous verb in MT (hxqtw) has
a feminine personal ending, the same as proposed for the second verb (hfxe_f). Regardless as to whether the three verbs should not be separated by a and
thereby form a series (she took it, opened it…) or whether hxqtw should end one sentence as a purpose/result or consecution function (e.g., ―…in order to take it‖) and
xtptw should open a new sentence with temporal function (e.g., ―when she
opened…‖), xtptw is nevertheless grammatically awkward (both in Hebrew and English) without the suffix.
1 Cassuto (Exodus, 17) calls her ―the only daughter of Levi the son of Jacob.‖ This is the orthographical reality; whether it comports with history is another matter. Cf. Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 270. 2 See Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §269. 3 See GKC §71; Joüon-Muraoka §53f. 123
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
The very next verbal compound in the sentence begins with a copula (w:); hence, it is likely that the consecutive wāws were mistaken, either by sight or, more likely, by sound, for one wāw, thus leading to haplography. Therefore, the proposed emendation is accepted on these grounds. b 2.6 Concerning the third verb in question (√h)r), the MT has a masculine pronominal
suffix (w@h_) but SP and Targum Pseudo Jonathan do not have personal endings
affixed: )rEt@IiwA (cf. LXX [o9ra=| paidi/on] and Vulgate [cernensque in ea parvulum]). The absence of a pronominal suffix is undoubtedly because immediately after this 4 verb the object, dlyh-t), is stated, thus rendering the pronominal suffix redundant. However, redundancy does not always necessarily necessitate grounds whereby emendation is to be enacted.5 As it stands the text reads cogently and with particular emphasis: ―she beheld him—the child.‖ If the masculine pronominal suffix is retained then there totals a
series of three descriptive, appositional words/particles for the infant: …dlyh-t) w@h_
r(n. Provided that this may have been the literary intention of the author emendation is neither required nor exercised.6 2.6c The Greek (and Latin) adds e0n th|= qi/bei; thus what was implicit for MT is an explicit object in other witnesses. Despite any appreciation for preciseness, the shorter reading (lectio brevior) is to be preferred. d 2.6 SP and LXX add the proper pronoun h(rp tb to the second half of v.6. This subject clarification would have been helpful in v.6a (if Pharaoh‘s daughter was indeed intended there, or did the maid not only retrieve but open, and look and behold too?). Though there is good reason for the explanatory gloss, once again lectio brevior is to be preferred. a 2.9 According to multiple Hebrew mss from the Cairo Geniza they attest ykylh, which is
equivalent to ykylho (so Targum Pseudo Jonathan)? The Greek witness (along with Vulgate) has diath/rhso/n moi (―keep free of me‖); and the Syriac Peshitta (with the Targums) contain h‟ lkj = en tibi (―see how‖).
4 Cf. GKC §131m; Joüon-Muraoka §146e. 5 Cassuto (Exodus, 19) asserts that the noun and pronominal suffix ―is not to be regarded as pleonastic or a later addition.‖ 6 Cf. Propp (Exodus 1-18, 144) who construes ―[c]orruption occurred amid the clustering of the Hebrew letters he and waw.‖ 124
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
E. Tov treats this text-critical issue in his monograph Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible expounding the following: 7
Exod 2:9 M hzh dlyh t) ykylyh … Take this child
object marker would conform to the grammar in the first part of the same verse (-t)
dlyh), additionally the syntax of 2.9a is distinguished still further by the
demonstrative particle also in construct: hzh dlyh-t). So, the designation in 2.9b
need not be as specific as the first. Though the direct object marker (t)) may have been intended, it is impossible to determine either way. Thus no correction is needed. c 2.9 Mss of the SP possess different orthography than the MT, w@hqIinyt@IiwA instead of w@hqIiynit@;wA.
The verb √qny is used three other times in Ex 2 and in each case the yôd is the initial 9 consonant of the verbal root, and all four occurrences of √qny are in the Hiphil stem. The Hiphil conjugation features, in most cases, a yôd as part of its diagnostic stem
between the second and third root consonants. That qny is a I-y verb, a Hiphil stem inflection becomes ununiformed and unique (e.g., the orthographical issue in 2.9a above). The wayyiqtol in question does deviate even more significantly from what 10 semblance of uniformity a I-y verb in the Hiphil stem can have. In light of the context and repetition of the verb, the text should undergo emendation according to the SP‘s witness. 2.10a The Leningrad Codex and many edited Hebrew manuscripts have the dāgēš lene in
the yôd of the word ldgyw. This is proper orthography and most probably the original (intention of the) text, thus the emendation is made.
7 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (rev. ed.; Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001), 253. (The text critical sigla featured do not agree verbatim due to the failure to obtain proper fonts.) So GKC §69x. 8 ―[T]he root *ylk might be an authentic byform of hlk ‗go, walk‘ (KB)‖ (Propp, Exodus 1-18, 145). 9 There is one ptcp (2.7a), one we-qatal (2.7b), one imperative (2.9a), and one wayyiqtol (2.9b). 10 Gary D. Pratico and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001), 360. 125
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
b 2.10 The SP attests (h(rp) tb l) rather than MT‘s (h(rp)-tbl. The discrepancy likely arose from a faulty-hearing error; the semantic difference is only slight. There is not enough cause to keep or to change a particular reading, so declining emendation here is preferable. All in all, the MT (as per BHS) is a reliable, well-attested document in this portion of Exodus. 0.2 Para-Textual Annotations 11 Ex 1.1–6.1 marks the first pārāšā (Shemot) of the book. In the book of Exodus (hl)w twm#) the second unit commences at chapter two. The first reading is Ex 1; and the third reading starts at Ex 3. Within Ex 2 there are a few pericopes which can be literarily demarcated further. Ex 1 finishes with a closed paragraph marker ( [s]), as does Ex 2; otherwise, the only other paragraph marker is the open one ( [p]) at the end of 2.22. Consequently, Ex 2.23-25 is a self-contained textual unit. Ex 2.1-22, though within the and Masoretic markers, can be subdivided at the end of v.10 due to the presence of a lacunae. This intentional, physical break in the text indicates a scene change: 2.1-10 tells of infant/weaned Moses and 2.11-22 presents adulthood Moses.12 0.3 Translation of Ex 2.1-10 See Appendix B for our translation of Ex 2.1-10.
1. Synchrony
1.1 Literary and Linguistic Analyses Literary and linguistic features of a text, no matter the length, or, in this case, the brevity, offer dynamic insights to textual contour. Henceforth, in the following exegesis, aspects of syntactical structures, linguistic witticisms via paronomasia, and examination of the patterns of the verbal system throughout Ex 2.1-10 shall be undertaken.
11 The Ashkenazic Haftarah for Shemot is a portion of the so-called Little Apocalypse (Isa 24-27), Isa 27.6–28.13, and Isa 29.22-23. Isa 27.12-13 is most corollary to the opening chapters of Exodus. 12 Ska (“Our Fathers”, 34), for example, further subdivides Ex 2.11-22 into two episodes, ―the second his first steps into public life (2,11-15), and the third the meeting at the well leading to his marriage (2,16-22),‖ thus seeing three episodes in Ex 2.1-22. Indeed, that the setting of Moses‘ early adulthood years geographically changes, no lacunae is to be found in the text. Therefore, for the Masoretes the lacunae must be a delineation strictly concerning the age of the protagonist. See also Isbell, ―Exodus 1-2,‖ 38-39. 126
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.1.1 Syntactical Structures The syntactical structures elucidated are parallel phrases which contain a degree of verbatim verbiage, and also recurring key words. 1.1.1.1 Parallel Phrases There is a phonetic parallel, both alliteration and assonance, between what the reader first witnesses the perception of the baby‘s mother and what the daughter of Pharaoh initially perceives, as recorded in the text.13
)wh bw+-yk wt) )rtw 2.2b
hbth- t) )rtw 2.5b
The verb-subject is verbatim, and the direct object marker is present in both phrases, albeit one has a pronominal suffix affixed to it and the other does not. Next, every consonant of the vessel in question (save the definite article) has a phonetic counterpart in the parallel object: the and phonetics, the two soft , and the two aspirations. This alliterative synthesis may connote that the respective beholder sees congruously. Another synthetic parallelism comprises three prepositional phrases, all of which contain the preposition l( and the noun r)yh.
r)yh tp#-l( 2.3
r)yh-l( 2.5
r)yh dy-l( 2.5
Whereas there is repetition there is also variety in these phrases. The third phrase, with the modifier dy, is unique to this story. The first two phrases find verbatim recurrences in Gen 41, which is the story of Joseph interpreting the dream couplets for the pharaoh.14 In addition, 15 r)yh tp#-l( features again in Ex 7.15 in the context of the first plague.
13 Cf. Gordon F. Davies, Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2 (JSOTSup, 135; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 102; U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1967), 19. 14 r)yh tp#-l( (Gen 41.3, 17) + r)yh-l( (Gen 41.1). 15 C. Isbell (―Exodus 1-2 in the Context of Exodus 1-14: Story Lines and Key Words‖ in Arts and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature [JSOTSup, 19; eds. D.J.A. Clines, D.M. Gunn, and A.J. Hauser; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982], 48) has recognized this verbatim phrase and also links those occurrences with Myh tp#-l( in Ex 14.30; consequently, what is illuminated for the reader with these locales, according to Isbell, is the following progression: Moses‘ mother causes the baby to be ―hiding from Pharaoh‖ (2.3), later ―the adult Moses confronts the Egyptian monarch‖ (7.14), and in the end Yahweh ―totally defeated the Pharaoh‖ (14.30). Emphasis his. Cf. Jopie Siebert-Hommes, Let the Daughters Live! The Literary Architecture of Exodus 1-2 as a Key for Interpretation (trans. Janet W. Dyk; BIS, 37; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 116; J. Cheryl Exum, ―‗You Shall Let Every Daughter Live‘: A Study of Exodus 1:8-2:10.‖ Semeia 28 (1983): 77; Propp, Exodus 1-18 (AB, 2; New York, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1999), 154. 127
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
The phrases concerning the Nile, when outlined as above, can be seen has forming some semblance of concentric arrangement. The centre occurrence is the simplest construct, while the first and last instances of the repetitive prepositional phrase each contain their own adjectival modifier. Moreover, the Nile modifiers are anthropomorphic representations; for 16 the river to possess hands (dy) and lips (tp#) —both of which are feminine declension— reveals another woman, as it were, to be at work in this story (for Ex 1-2 is notorious for its amount of women characters over against males). 1.1.1.2 Leitworte and Leitmotiv (cf. 2.1.1) There are minimal male characters in Ex 1-2, and when those in Ex 2 are referenced they are 17 given the title ―son.‖ As C. Isbell has pointed out, Nb forms an inclusio in the pericope 2.1- 10; the son of Levi begins the story (2.1) and the adopted son of the princess occurs at the end (2.10).18 Further, J.C. Exum sees a compounded envelope structure in the pairing of the key terms Nb and tb: ―the story begins with the birth of a son (Nb) to the daughter (tb) of Levi (v 19 2), and ends with his becoming a son (Nb) to the daughter (tb) of pharaoh (v 10).‖
Undeniably, tb has even greater ubiquity in Ex 1-2 than Nb, serving as a significant linking word. In Ex 2.1-10 alone there are three daughters: the ywl-tb-t), daughter of Levi
(2.1), the h(rp-tb, daughter of Pharaoh (2.5, 7, 8, 9), and the sister of Moses who is 20 naturally a daughter of the mother (though tb is never formally used of her). Outside of this pericope, in Ex 1, there is mention of when in the event a daughter is born the midwives are to let them live (1.16, 22); and, in the remainder of Ex 2 we find the seven daughters of the Midianite priest (2.16, 20).21
16 The inflection in each case is dual. 17 Isbell, ―Exodus 1-2,‖ 43; so Stuart, Exodus (NAC, 2; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holdman Publishers, 2006), 84. 18 Siebert-Hommes (Let the Daughters Live!, 71) also notes this inclusio, yet goes further to extract a concentric structure from Ex 2.1-10; and, this concentric arrangement is sustained by the similar terms mother, sister, daughter, etc. with ―the child,‖ in v.6, as the centrepiece. Moreover, she notes there are 141 words in the pericope and ―[t]he single word in the middle is dlyh ‗the child‘‖ (72). Cf. Coats, Exodus 1-18 (FOTL, IIA; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 26; Mark S. Smith, Exodus (The New Collegeville Bible Commentary, 3; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2011), 21. 19 ―‗You Shall Let Every Daughter Live‘,‖ 67; so Kåre Berge, Reading Sources in a Text. Coherence and Literary Criticism in the Call of Moses: Models—Methods—Micro-Analysis (ATSAT, 54; Erzabtei St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1997), 171; Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1984), 53. 20 According to Cassuto (Exodus, 17), ―the repeated use of the word daughter‖ purports to the ―inner nexus‖ of the 2.1-10 pericope. So Beat Weber, ―‗...jede Tochter aber sollt ihr am Leben lassen!‘— Beobachtungen zu Ex 1,15–2,10 und seinem Kontext aus literaturwissenschftlicher Perspektive,‖ BN 55 (1990): 50-51, 53-55. Cf. also Robert B. Lawton (―Irony in Early Exodus,‖ ZAW 97 [1985]: 414) who mused that ironically Ex 2.1-10 ―is as full of women as Egypt seemed full of Hebrews!‖ 21 Siebert-Hommes (Let the Daughters Live!, 112) has proposed a 12 daughter hypothesis contrasting/ complementing the 12 sons of Israel. These daughters of Ex 1-2 include Pharaoh‘s, Levi‘s, the sister, the two 128
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
22 xql, though a common verb, recurs quite often in Ex 2.1-10. A Levite goes and takes the daughter of Levi (2.1); the daughter of Levi takes a (2.3); the same is taken out of the reeds by order of the daughter of Pharaoh (2.5); the mother, in turn, took back her infant child for a time of nursing (2.9).23 Thus the taking (and taking back) motif in the story may elucidate the larger contextual background, if not the groundswell of the forthcoming exodus. 1.1.2 Paronomasia There are several paronomasias in the short pericope of Ex 2.1-10, a couple of which are alliterative puns on the name Moses, as well as a few other wordplays. The story‘s suspense is perhaps crystallized best in the infant‘s sister‘s motive in stationing herself as outlook. She wants to know h#(y-hm, ―what would become,‖ of him (2.4b); by the end of the story every audient and character finds out, resulting in the boy being named h#m, ―Moses‖ (2.10b). Thus, this alliterative paronomasia sums up the tension of the whole story: what will become of Moses!? Additionally, there is alliteration between the word ―name,‖ the actual name given, and the naming etymology: …whty#m Mymh-Nm…h#m wm#. The three consonants , , and are repeatedly present throughout.
Part of the princess‘s entourage comprises an hm) (as opposed to the previously 24 attested tr(n ), who appears to function in a servant role based on the semantic implications of the term and accordingly (contextually) being commissioned to retrieve the (2.5).
Eventually the mother, M), of the baby is commissioned—hired, even—by the princess to nurse the infant (2.7-9, esp. v.8). Thus, the M) essentially becomes an hm) (see 1.2.3). When Moses‘ mother modified a to suspend her infant buoyant upon the river, the largest measure toward this goal was to besmear it with bitumen (and pitch) (2.3). Not only is the object (rmxb) a concomitant of the verb (hrmxtw), but there is an orthographical antecedent in Ex 1. There it was relayed the slave drivers made the lives of the Hebrews bitter with hard labour in mortar and brick (1.14). A concomitant is present here too between verb and object, for the slaves‘ embitterment (wrrmyw) was due to their forced labour with mortar
(rmxb) and brick. Thus, the object in Ex 1.14 and 2.3 is essentially identical, both in
midwives, and the seven daughters of the Midian priest. Cf. James S. Ackerman, ―The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story (Exodus 1-2)‖ in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (eds. K.R.R. Gros Louis, et al.; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1974), 95. 22 The following are actually the only usages of xql in Ex 1-3. Cf. Houtman, Exodus, vol.1: Chapters 1:1–7:13 (HCOT; trans. Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra; Kampen: Kok, 1993), 37. 23 Cf. Ackerman, ―Literary Context,‖ 92. 24 Cf. the play between Pharaoh‘s daughter‘s hr(n(2.5) and when she beholds a r(n (2.6). 129
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
morphology and meaning; with alternate vowel pointing the three-consonant word is either 25 26 bitumen (rmfxIi) or mortar (rmexo), which are nonetheless related substances. Further, it must have been a bitter (√rrm) experience for Moses‘ mother to besmear (√rmx) a knowing that she would soon give up her child. 1.1.3 The Verbal System and Conjugation Conjugations, tenses, and stems are all significant factors for mapping the verbal system; indeed, the verbal system is the engine of narrative. Wayyiqtols dominate and drive the Moses Infancy Narrative—approximately seventy percent of the verbs are, in fact, wayyiqtols (32/46).27 This of course is typical of Hebrew narrative, yet it does stand in some distinction to the Genesis Flood, ‘s other narrative context (see ch.2 1.1.1.2). C.H.J. van der Merwe submits ―the mainline of a narrative is continued by wayyiqtol forms;‖28 likewise, A. Andrason describes a string of wayyiqtols, such as is the case in Ex 2.1-3, as ―the backbone of the narration.‖29 Such ubiquitous wayyiqtols indeed engender the rapidity of the succession of many events in such a terse literary unit. There is only one qatal in 2.1-10, and is actually the last word of the pericope. This qatal verb refers back to when the princess drew a baby out of the water (whty#m; 2.10)— which is, fittingly, a summary of the story. Therefore the account is (re)cast in the distant past with this ending, retrospective qatal. Similar in function to the qatal is the we-X-qatal, of which there is also a single occurrence. After hiding the baby for three months, the mother was not then able (hlky-)lw) any longer to hide him (2.3a). This is not only simply past portending, but also connotes background narrative30 and ―‗overlays‘ a time segment that has already been covered.‖31
25 BDB, 330; cf. HALOT, 330-331. See also Jer 18.4; Nah 3.14. 26 See Davies, Israel in Egypt, 99; Siebert-Hommes, Let the Daughters Live!, 73; Donald W. Wicke, ―The Literary Structure of Exodus 1:2-2:10,‖ JSOT 24/4 (1982): 100. 27 All but three (3) are in the Qal stem. 28 Van der Merwe ―Discourse Linguistics,‖ 39; cf. Gard Granerød, ―Omnipresent in Narratives, Disputed among Grammarians: Some Contributions to the Understanding of wayyiqtol and their Underlying Paradigms,‖ ZAW 121/3 (2009): 418-434. 29 Andrason, ―Biblical Hebrew Wayyiqtol,‖ 30 (31). 30 See Van der Merwe, ―Discourse Linguistics,‖ 29; Alviero Nicccacci, ―On the Hebrew Verbal System‖ in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis (ed. R.D. Bergen), 123. 31 Buth, ―Methodological Collision,‖ 139. Buth further explains waw-X-qatal is a ―break in chronology …to create an effect of a temporal pause for dramatic effect‖ (141). Both these descriptions related well to -)lw hlky in Ex 2.3. 130
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Consequently, the Moses Infancy Narrative functions as a pluperfect story32 (subsumed within the grander Exodus Narrative [chs. 1/2*–14/15*]). Imperatives, participles, and infinitive constructs all contribute to a present aspect of time in a narrative.33 Most of the imperatival directives are spoken by the daughter of 34 Pharaoh, which has the thrust of command (whqnyhw, ykylyh, ykl; 2.8-9); yet, one imperative verb form belongs to the infant‘s sister, and from her lips it is meant to be an interrogative 35 entreaty or request (Kl)h; 2.7). The participles of the text tell of ―walking‖ (tklh; 2.5a),
―crying‖ (hkb; 2.6a), and ―nursing‖ (tqnym; 2.7a). The infinitives of Ex 2.1-10 are used to voice attempts ―to hide‖ (wnypch; 2.3a), ―to learn/know‖ (h(dl; 2.4b), and ―to bathe‖ (Cxrl; 2.5a). All these actions have a so-called historical present impact on the successional narrative. There are a few future verbs found in the textual unit, though any future action is coloured by the vast drapery of the wayyiqtol past aspect. These yiqtols include -hm h(dl 36 wl h#(y (2.4b) and Krk#-t) Nt) yn)w (2.9aβ). By the story‘s end we see what happens to Moses in the first instance; and in the second instance Moses‘ mother is, presumably, awarded her wages. Consequently, the future/yiqtol verbs are completed within the narrative unit. One final yiqtol (of shorts) may appear to be cloaked as a wayyiqtol, but the affixed wāw of qnytw is actually a conjunctive rather than converted wāw (2.7a; cf. 1 Sam 1.23); so we have a we-yiqtol in 2.7a communicating consecution:37 the sister offers/asks to go and call a wet-nurse from the Hebrews with the result that she may nurse the child for the princess. Every Hiphil stemmed verb in Ex 2.1-10, interestingly, has only as its subject the mother of Moses; and since Hiphil is the causative stem this means that it is Jochebed, as opposed to, say, the pharaoh‘s daughter, who actually causes events to unfold. Jochebed is not able to hide him the infant any longer (wnypch; 2.3a); Jochebed is a lactating woman
(qnyt + tqnym; 2.7); Jochebed takes the child (ykylyh; 2.9a); Jochebed nurses him (+ whqnyhw
32 Joüon-Muraoka §118d. 33 GKC §107k; Joüon-Muraoka §121d. 34 Cf. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §188, 189. 35 Cf. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §190, 191; GKC §107q, 112p. 36 Andrason (―Panchronic Yiqtol‖) identifies this occurrence as a Text Yiqtol (14) which ―indicates background activities and situations‖ (13 [14-16]). Cf. Talstra, ―Syntax and composition: The use of yiqtol in narrative sections in the book of Exodus‖ in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelius Houtman (CBET, 44; eds. R. Roukema, et al.; Leuven: Peeters, 2006), 234. 37 Joüon-Muraoka §118h. ―Functionally, wǝyiqtol serve to express purpose or result unambiguously— in contradistinction to wǝ + volitive which expresses a variety of functions. Like wǝqatal and wǝ + volitive, wǝyiqtol is not limited to volitive sequences, but is also found following questions or statements‖ such as is the case in Ex 2.7a (J. Joosten, ―A Note on the wəyiqtol and Volitive Sequences,‖ VT 59/3 [2009]: 496 [498]). Cf. J.S. Baden, ―The wəyiqtol and the Volative Sequence,‖ VT 58/2 (2008): 147-158; Thomas O. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1971), §107. 131
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
whqyntw; 2.9); Jochebed brings the child back (wh)btw; 2.10a). Consequently, the mother of Moses is not a passive character; regardless of being narratively mute, she is the agent of much action.
1.2 Narrative Criticism The multiplicity of narratological lenses to be considered in narrative criticism (narratology) are the dimensions of the narrator–narratee, real/implied author(ship)–real/implied reader(ship), characters, events, time, and setting. 1.2.1 Narrator–Narratee D.F. Tolmie cogently states the ―‗voice‘ within the text is called the narrator‖ and the ―intratextual listener(s) is called the narratee.‖38 In Ex 2.1-10 the narrator‘s voice speaks just over half of the story‘s length (2.1-6bα), through a directing function,39 before a character is given a mouthpiece. Once that transpires characters dialogue with each other, relegating the narrator‘s voice to an infinitesimal amount of verbiage, just enough to progress the plotline.40 (A indicates Pharaoh‘s daughter; B represents the infant‘s sister.) Narrator‘s Text [2.1-6bα] (A) Character‘s Text [2.6bβ] (B) Character‘s Text [2.7*] (A) Character‘s Text [2.8a*] Narrator‘s Text [2.8b] (A) Character‘s Text [2.9a*] Narrator‘s Text [2.9b-10a] (A) Character‘s Text [2.10b*]
The minimal stock phrases of the narrator in the second half of the story include speech introductory phrases (the verb rm) plus any additional subject specification and mention of audient, direct or indirect) as well as fulfillment statements derived from character conversation thereby transitioning events (e.g., .dlyh M)-t) )rqtw hml(h Kltw [2.8b];
.whqyntw dlyh h#)h xqtw [2.9b]). Three narrator–character(s) cycles arise from the above graph.41 In the first cycle the narrator exposits much information and this is counterbalanced by two characters amounting
38 Narratology, 13. 39 Tolmie (Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide [London: International Scholars Press, 1999], 21) says this function makes ―meta-narrative remarks…concerning the internal organization of the narrative‖ through ―connections or interrelationships within the narrative text‖ (cf. 64-67). 40 Tolmie (Narratology, 18) terms this phenomena moving from a homodiegetic (the presence of narrator/narratee) to a heterodiegetic (the absent narrators and narrates) position. Similarly, Amit (Reading Biblical Narratives, 49) distinguishes between telling (e.g., Ex 2.1-6bα) and showing (e.g., Ex 2.6 bβ-10) presentation. 41 A. Berlin (Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative [BiLiSe, 9; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983], 64) declares: ―Direct speech…is the most dramatic way of conveying the characters‘ internal 132
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
to three speeches (2.1-6bα & 2.6bβ-8a). The second cycle comprises the narrator and princess speaking (2.8b & 2.9a*). The third cycle again has the narrator verbiage (2.9b-10a) which is offset by the princess‘ orations (2.10b*). Altogether the narratee hears three different voices throughout the story. 1.2.2 Real/Implied Author–Real/Implied Reader ―Just as the world of the narrative is one in which a narrator tells a story to a narratee,‖ J.T. Walsh explicates, ―the world of the text is one in which an (implied) author writes a narrative about a narrator telling a story to a narratee, and an (implied) reader reads it.‖42 There is one particular point at which, during the reading of Ex 2.1-10, it sounds as though the narrator is speaking more directly toward a real/implied reader(ship) and thereby him/herself transforming into a real/implied author(ship). This instance is in the naming episode. Because there is a language bridging, from Egyptian to Hebrew, between the name Moses (h#m) and its etymology (whty#m Mymh-Nm), the real/implied author exerts not only explanation but translation/interpretation—to the reader—when presenting both parts (2.10). (See 1.2.3.5.3 below.) 1.2.3 Characters The cast of characters features eight plus persons.43 Aside from the father of Moses and Moses himself, all the rest of the characters are female; these include the mother and sister of Moses, Pharaoh‘s daughter, and an un-enumerated amount of attendants. Each shall be examined narratologically and roughly in order of appearance. 1.2.3.1 Moses‟s Father and Mother
Moses‘ parents are the first datum of the Infant Moses story: -tb-t) xqyw ywl tybm #y) Klyw ywl (1.1). Their personal names are not given here, only their tribal ancestry. Later in the Pentateuch, though, Moses‘ mother‘s name features, Jochebed (Ex 6.20; Num 26.59) and Amram is his father‘s name (Ex 6.18, 20; Num 3.19; 26.58-59; 1 Chron 6.2-3, 18; 23.12- 13).44
psychological and ideological points of view. It also tends to internalize the spatial and temporal viewpoint of the narrator, situating him there, with the character, as the character speaks.‖ 42 Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 8. Walsh (ibid.) clarifies, ―no real reader of the Bible…is perfectly identical to the implied reader‖ (cf. 123). Cf. Tolmie, Narratology, 132; Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art in the Bible (JSOTSup, 70; trans. Dorothea Shefer- Vanson with S. Bar-Efrat; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989), 35. 43 See Weber‘s illuminating character diagraming (of Ex 1.15–2.10) in ―‗...jede Tochter aber sollt ihr am Leben lassen!‘‖, 56-59. Cf. also J. Cheryl Exum, ―Second Thoughts about Secondary Characters: Women in Exodus 1.8–2.10‖ in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy; The Feminist Companion to the Bible, vol.6 (ed., A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 75-87. 44 For the sake of convenience the name Jochebed will be utilized in the exegesis of Ex 2. 133
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
The patriarch Levi had three sons: Gershon, Kohath and Merari;45 and Kohath was the father of Amram.46 Nowhere are any daughters of Levi catalogued except for Num 26.59 where it states Jochebed was ywl-tb. Comparing the descriptive orthography in Ex 2.1 47 (ywIlIi-tb@a-t)e) and Num 26.59 (ywIlIi-tb@a) the indefinite conveyance holds; in the latter reference, the Greek also has the indefinite Iwxabed quga/thr Leui (in contrast to Ex 2.1: tw=n qugate/rwn). Hence it is still ambiguous and an argument from silence as to whether Jochebed is a daughter of Levi or the daughter of Levi (see 2.2.1).48 Regardless, the biblical record is consistent when it says ―Amram married his father‘s sister Jochebed,‖ i.e., his aunt (Ex 6.20).49 1.2.3.1.2 The Father‟s Actions The only verbal attribution of the Levite man in the story is his relationship with a/the daughter of Levi, which is that he went and took her (2.1; cf. Sota 12a; Exodus Rabbah 1.13;
Sabbat 55b; Baba Batra 17a). There is some debate as to the nature of Amram‘s going (Klyw) and taking (xqyw) of Jochebed. Most scholars find this verbal pairing to be nothing out of the ordinary, surmising it as normal marriage formulae.50 Others, such as Kratz and Schmid, suspect foul play, namely rape. Though Schmid argues on the grounds of irregular syntax, both he and Kratz interpolate/interpret into this statement a cause for the abandonment of the infant. For them Ex 1 is a later composition (and a flimsy weld to Ex 2.1-10) and does not elucidate Pharaoh‘s genocide as the impetus for the baby‘s exposure.51 Conversely, the Ex 2.1 impetus for exposure is (vis-à-vis ancient Near Eastern motifs) due to an unwanted child of illicit relations and lack of paternal support. This discussion consequently turns quickly from synchronic to diachronic (see 2.4). As far as characterization goes, Amram is a flat, two-dimensional character, necessary only to establish for patronymics.
45 Gen 46.11; Ex 6.16; Num 3.17; 26.57; 1 Chron 6.1, 16; 23.6. 46 Ex 6.18; Num 3.27; 26.57-58; 1 Chron 6.2, 18; 23.12. 47 x2 Compare tba@ha in Ex 1.22; Jer 31.22; 49.4; Lam 2.13; Ezek 45.11, 14 48 GKC (§117d) opts for the latter. Cf. Greifenhagen, Egypt on the Pentateuch‟s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel‟s Identity (JSOTSup, 361; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 59 n.56: ―If Israel had lived in Egypt for 430 years before the Exodus (Exod. 12.40), it would be impossible for Moses‘ mother to be literally a daughter of Levi.‖ 49 For a genogram see Dozeman, Exodus, 172 (cf. also Greifenhagen, Egypt, 60). George V. Pixley (On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective [trans. Robert R. Barr; Maryknoll, New York, 1987], 7) observes: ―According to the Law as stated in Leviticus 18:12, sexual relations between a man and his father‘s sisters were illicit, and it comes as no surprise to us here that Moses is sprung from such a relationship.‖ 50 Stuart, Exodus, 84; cf. Dozeman, Exodus, 80; Timothy D. Finlay, The Birth Report Genre in the Hebrew Bible (FAT, II/12; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005), 233. 51 Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament (trans. John Bowden; New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 281; Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (trans. James Nogalski; Siphrut, 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010), 141. Cf. Van Seter‘s rebuttal of Schmid‘s position in ―The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the gap between two origin traditions‖ in The Interpretation of Exodus (ed., R. Roukema, et al.), 7-9. 134
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.2.3.1.3 The Mother‟s Actions The babe‘s mother does not speak in the story, thus her character can only be adduced by her actions (like Noah of the Flood Narrative). Accordingly, she somewhat straddles being a round character—because her actions are central to the plot and progression of broader events—and a flat character—because of the fact that she does not verbally communicate in the story. The mother‘s actions can be categorized as follows: sight/perception, hiding and concealing, and nursing.52 53 Jochebed saw, via internal focalization, that her babe was bw+ (2.2; cf. 1.1.1.1). This is an intriguing descriptive—that he is described at all is significant.54 A. Berlin has explicated how infrequent physical descriptions are recorded in the Hebrew Bible;55 biblical narrators are simply disinterested in that type of portrayal, or at least they give more narratological priority in depicting the thoughts and actions of characters, rather than physique.56 S. Bar-Efrat advances the view that ―biblical narrative information about someone‘s outward aspect serves solely as a means of advancing the plot or explaining its 57 course‖; and this is certainly the case here. Yet what is the descriptive nature of bw+? Four responses are generally submitted. 58 First, Moses‘ physicality has been the typical interpretation of bw+. Indeed, this predilection is explicitly stated by the Septuagint translators who employ the word a0stei=oj (Ex 2.2; cf. Acts 7.20; Heb 11.23).59 This adjective is defined as ―handsome,‖ ―well-bred,‖ or 60 ―beautiful‖ (cf. Philo VM I 9, 15, 18ff. & Josephus AJ II 228ff.). The Hebrew bw+, further, has oft been translated as ―beautiful‖ in a few key passages (e.g., Gen 6.2),61 hence interpretations follow suit.62
52 For the actions of conceiving and giving birth see 1.2.3.5.2. 53 See Tolmie, Narratology, 32-33. 54 Concerning direct characterisation see Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives, 74-77. Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 33. 55 Berlin, Poetics, 34-36, 137-138. 56 Berlin, Poetics, 36: ―The purpose of character description in the Bible is not to enable the reader to visualize the character, but to enable him to situate the character in terms of his place in society, his own particular situation, and his outstanding traits—in other words, to tell what kind of a person he is.‖ 57 Narrative Art in the Bible, 48. 58 E.g., Louis H. Feldman, ―Philo‘s View of Moses‘ Birth and Upbringing,‖ CBQ 64 (2002): 279-280. 59 In the Hebrews passage Moses is perceived as ―beautiful‖ by both parents; in Acts Moses is interpolated as being ―beautiful‖ before God. The other occurrences of this term in the LXX and Pseudapigrapha is found in Num 22.32; Jda 3.17; Jdg 3.17; Jdt 11.23; 2 Mac 6.23; Sus 1.7. 60 DBAG, 145; LS, 260. 61 E.g., NASB, NET, NIV, NKJV, ESV. 62 So Esther Fuchs, ―A Jewish-Feminist Reading of Exodus 1-2‖ in Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS, 8; eds. A.O. Bellis and J.S. Kaminsky; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2000), 313. Contra Carol M. Kaminski, ―Beautiful Women or ‗False Judgment‘? Interpreting Genesis 6.2 in the Context of the Primaeval History,‖ JSOT 32/4 (2008): 457-473. Cf. Feldman, ―Philo‘s View,‖ 278-280; Klaas Spronk, 135
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Second, bw+, in Ex 2.2, may refer more to the nature or health of the child, 63 alternatively. Noth and Childs interpret the adjective in question as ―healthy‖. If bw+ means healthy instead of handsome, then this descriptive would serve as heightened tension in the narrative. For, if the babe was unhealthy or even deformed then exposing it would not be as scandalous—actually being a logical consequence in some cultures;64 but a healthy new-born would want to be preserved by any/all means possible/necessary.
Third, bw+(-yk) is held by some to function adverbially, having ―the force of an intensifier or asseverative.‖65 D.K. Stuart believes ― + [noun or pronoun] + , actually means ‗to care about,‘ ‗to be found of,‘ or ‗to want [to have or to keep].‖66 If the adverbial sense is intended, then bw+(-yk) portents more to the mother‘s emotionality. Fourth, some scholars simply translate the word in question as ―goodly.‖67 Actually 68 69 bw+ constitutes a Leitmotiv in the literary context of Genesis and Exodus. Indeed, there is matching diction betwixt Jochebed‘s perception of her creation and God‘s perception of his creation:70
)wh bw+-yk wt) )rtw Ex 2.2
bw+-yk Myhl) )ryw Gen 1.10, 12, 18, 21, 25 (cf. Gen 1.4, 31)
In conclusion, bw+ should be taken as a holistic term, referring both to handsomeness and health as well as playing on the Leitmotiv of bw+ in Gen 1-11—especially Gen 1. To 71 understand ―good(ly)‖ from the adjective bw+ in this Ex 2 context is therefore preferred.
―The picture of Moses in the history of interpretation‖ in The Interpretation of Exodus (eds. R. Roukema, et al.), 254-257. 63 Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; trans. J.S. Bowden; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1962), 25; Childs, Exodus, 18. So also Durham, Exodus (WBC, 3; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 16. 64 Erkki Koskenniemi, The Exposure of Infants Among Jews and Christians in Antiquity (The Social World of Biblical Antiquity, Second Series, 4; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2009). 65 James L. Kugel, ―The Adverbial use of ,‖ JBL 99/3 (1980): 433; contra J. Gerald Janzen, ―Kugel‘s Adverbial : An Assessment,‖ JBL 102/1 (1983): 99-117. 66 Stuart, Exodus, 87. 67 Cassuto, Exodus, 18; Propp, Exodus 1-18, 149; Noth, Exodus, 24-26; S.R. Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 8. 68 Kaminski (―Beautiful Women or ‗False Judgment‘?,‖ 466, 473) writes, ―just as God sees that his creation is good, the sons of God see that the daughters of humankind are good,‖ however the former are ―incorrect in their ‗good‘ verdict‖ as evidence by the latter‘s destruction in the deluge. 69 In Ex 1.20a the verbal form (b+y) is employed: tdlyml Myhl) b+yyw. 70 Sarna (Exodus [The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991], 9) extrapolates, ―This parallel suggests that the birth of Moses is intended to be understood as the dawn of a new creative era.‖ Cf. bSota 12a; ExR. I, 20; Zohar Ex 11b. See also GKC §117h; Joüon-Muraoka §157d; Dozeman, Exodus, 80-81; Meyers, Exodus (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 43; Siebert-Hommes, Let the Daughters Live!, 114-115; Propp, Exodus 1-18, 147. 71 Again, when Elohim is good to/deals favourably with (b+y) the midwives, in Ex 1.20, it purports a holistic quality. (On a related issue, the verbal and adjectival form of b+ may serve as the two parts needed to hinge passages together.) 136
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Jochebed also hides (√Npc; 2.2bβ) her new-born for three months and then is unable to 72 73 hide him (√Npc; 2.3aα) any longer. The initial hiding is nondescript; however, the advanced measure of concealment is described considerably.74 In order to augment the time of the infant‘s concealment several actions are enacted.
First, Jochebed takes (xql) a (2.3aβ); this implies that it was already constructed—all that was needed was some modification.75 The modification included 76 besmearing (rmx) the with bitumen and pitch (2.3aβ). Upon completion the infant is set (My#) in the , and then that pregnant item is set (My#) amongst the reeds of the riverbed (2.3b)77—thus not only is the babe enveloped in the , the , additionally, is itself engulfed within reeds (which is certainly taller than the vessel).78 One final tier of concealment may be found in the baby‘s sister being posted nearby. If her presence and role is that of surveillance (commissioned by the mother [2.4 + 2.7]?), then the tentacles of protection are relatively far-reaching.79 This second stage of hiding/concealment perhaps needs direct clarification. Several scholars maintain that the cradling Moses was set adrift on the water, to float down the river; they conjecture that Jochebed means to depart from the three-month old indefinitely, opining that the watertight was crafted as such in order to take an irreversible voyage downstream the Nile.80 Unfortunately, a close reading cannot confirm this fanciful
72 Cf. Samuel E. Balentine, ―A Description of the Semantic Field of Hebrew Words for ‗Hide‘,‖ VT 30/2 (1980): 137-153. 73 Stuart (Exodus, 88) images, ―He would be small enough to be hidden easily in the home, would not move around much, and usually could be kept from crying by nursing or rocking. Thereafter [namely, after three months], it would become harder to hide a baby from prying eyes and ears, so the actions of v.3 represent the logical next step taken by Jochebed.‖ 74 Ex 1.22 is the impetus for abandonment/exposure and hiding/concealment motifs. Suzanne Boorer (―Source and Redaction Criticism‖ in Methods for Exodus [MBI; ed. T.B. Dozeman; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010], 115-116) explicates, ―Verse 22, the intention to drown the boys in the Nile (), then, forms the necessary backdrop for the story of Moses‘ birth and rescue in Exodus 2:1-10, explaining the reason for hiding Moses, ironically, in the Nile (, v.3)….‖ Cf. also Dennis T. Olson, ―Literary and Rhetorical Criticism‖ in Methods for Exodus (ed. T.B. Dozeman), 33-34. 75 Contra Fuchs (―Jewish-Feminist Reading,‖ 313) who asserts ―she [i.e. the mother] made an ark of bulrushes…‖; Exum, ―‗You Shall Let Every Daughter Live‘,‖ 76. 76 Childs (Exodus, 18) comments, ―The writer portrays the intense care with which the basket was prepared to prevent its leaking—it even had a top.‖ 77 Van Seters elucidates, ―the order of the king was to throw the male children in the Nile with the intention of killing them. The mother of Moses complies by placing him with the utmost care in the Nile and this becomes his salvation‖ (―The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the gap between two origin traditions‖ in The Interpretation of Exodus [eds. R. Roukema, et al.], 9). Cf. Exum, ―‗You Shall Let Every Daughter Live‘,‖ 75; Davies, Israel in Egypt, 114; Propp, Exodus 1-18, 153-154; Cassuto, Exodus, 18; Sarna, Exodus, 9. 78 Regarding the height of river reed see 1.2.6 Setting. Suffice it here to say it would have been substantially taller than the height of the . 79 So Siebert-Hommes, Let the Daughters Live!, 117. 80 Dozeman, Exodus, 56; Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (LHBOTS, 433 [Copenhagen International Series, 15]; New York: T&T Clark, 137
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
interpretation.81 The mother of Moses lodges baby and into the thick and tall reeds along the riverbed (2.4); the motive is to keep baby and stationary and camouflaged on the waters.82 This detail consequently explicates the motive of the family: instead of the loaded floating downstream coincidentally arriving at Pharaoh‘s daughter, rather Jochebed intentionally places her child in the princess‘s bathing spot in order for the latter to come face-to-face with a (potential) victim of her father‘s, the king‘s, genocide edict.83
When Pharaoh‘s daughter commissions Levi‘s daughter to breastfeed (whqnyhw) the infant (2.9a), the latter is simply continuing her motherly role after a relatively short hiatus of doing the same.84 V.9 is laid out as a command–fulfilment report; and this could not have been a more favourable mandate to receive and execute. This suckling arrangement thus lasted until the boy was weaned (2.10aα).85 1.2.3.2 Moses‟s Sister (cf. 2.1.2; 2.2.1.4) Moses‘ sister is nameless in this story. Elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible a sister of Moses is named Miriam (Num 26.59; 1 Chron 6.3; cf. Ex 15.20; Mic 6.4). It is not unanimous among scholars as to whether the girl in Ex 2 is Miriam;86 this derision is based on the presumed fact that Miriam is younger than Moses in the genealogies.87
Who we assume to be Miriam, then, is first found in the narrative qxrm…bcttw (2.4). She has positioned herself (standing) a certain distance away from baby and basket;88 apparently she must not be too close as to call attention to the object(s) (1.2.3.1.3.2). While
2006), 178; Hague, NIDOTTE, 4: 270; Gale A. Yee, ―Postcolonial Biblical Criticism‖ in Methods for Exodus (ed. T.B. Dozeman), 218; J. Gerald Janzen, Exodus (Westminster Bible Commentary; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 21. 81 This is explicitly mentioned in the Sargon Legend but not here. 82 So Sarna (Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel [New York: Schocken Books, 1986], 29): ―The idea of the mother was to make sure that the infant would not be carried downstream.‖ Cf. Stuart, Exodus, 89; Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 278. 83 Houtman (Exodus vol.1, 278) conjectures the intended recipient of the mother and sisters strategically positioned vessel was any number of Egyptian women servants—not the princess herself! 84 Sarah Shectman (Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis [HBM, 23; Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2009], 109) states, ―Moses‘ mother and sister also use a kind of deception in order not only to save Moses‘ life, but also to ensure that he is nursed by his own mother and thus that she is able to spend a few more years with him, until she gives him up completely.‖ 85 For wet-nursing contracts see Childs, ―The Birth of Moses,‖ JBL 84/2 (1965): 113-114. Cf. Mayer I. Gruber, ―Breast-Feeding Practices in Biblical Israel and in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia,‖ JANES 19 (1989): 61-83, esp. 80-82. 86 Schectman (Women in the Pentateuch, 110), who citing Noth (Pentateuchal Traditions, 178) and Burns (Has the Lord Indeed Spoken, 81), affirms, ―At an early stage in the tradition, Moses was not related to either Aaron or Miriam and this story may reflect such a stage. Alternatively, it may simply be that the narrative concerns only Moses‖. 87 Evidence for this claim can be bore out considering the fact that in genealogies birth order is typically recorded in chronological order, hence: Aaron, Moses, and Miriam (Ex 6.20; Num 26.59; 1 Chron 6.3); see also L.J. de Regt, ―The Order of Participants,‖ 89. Driver (Exodus, 11) takes Miriam to be ―at least 15 or 16 years older than Moses.‖ 88 BDB, 426; cf. Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 279. 138
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Jubilees 47.4 intimates the sister‘s purpose as shooing birds away from the infant, the Exodus 89 record gives the following purpose statement: wl h#(y-hm h(dl (2.4b; cf. 1.1.2.1).
Miriam is referred to in two ways in the short narrative: Moses‘ sister (wtx)) and a maiden/virgin (hml(). The former term (2.4a, 7a) is the most natural for the plot of the story (cf. 1.1.1.2). The latter term (2.8b) is a fairly rare word in the Hebrew Bible;90 and, beyond that, the shift in proper pronoun usage is somewhat unexpected. Why would an alternate personal pronoun be employed a verse later in such a short narrative?
Perhaps one interpretation would understand the referent hml( as a means to parallel the servant girl of Pharaoh‘s daughter‘s company (see 1.2.3.4).91 Whereas the Egyptian girl, hm), retrieves the , the Hebrew girl, hml(, retrieves a lactating woman. This lexical nexus may be in place to demonstrate how the new-born‘s sister (hml() is serving as the 92 princess‘s servant (hm)) from the moment of that exchange —Pharaoh‘s daughter mandates her to find a nursing mother, and the latter gladly implements said order for the princess!93 The sister of the infant is only one of two people who speak in this story—not even the mother is donned with direct discourse (cf. 1.2.1). After the speech introductory formulae, the girl has ten words attributed to her. Her speech comprise a question (interrogative particle), thus her mood (conjugation) is jussive indicating a request (an imperative from a junior to a senior).94 Not only is this an appropriately formulated entreaty, but there is an additional hint of pandering in the presence of the twofold K7lf (i.e., the princess)—a fifth of her total words.95 The flattery worked, for the princess accepts the plan with a word. Consequently, the sister of Moses is a full-fledged character.96
89 This focalization boarders between external and internal; cf. Tolmie, Narratology, 32-33. Regarding foreshadowing see M. Sternberg, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985), 268. 90 All occurrences in LXX (and Pseudapigrapha): Gen 24.43; Exod. 2.8; Ps 68.26; Prov 30.19; (Cant 1.3; 6.8) Isa 7.14. 91 So Propp, Exodus 1-18, 153. 92 See M.G. Bachmann, ―¿Qué hacían mientras tanto?,‖ Cuaderno de Teología 18 (1999): 16. 93 ―The sister plays a key role as the agent in the story who joins the introductory theme of the mother and child with that of the princess and child‖ (Childs, Exodus, 18). Athalya Brenner (―Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the ‗Birth of the Hero‘ Paradigm,‖ VT 36/3 [1986], 269) identifies ―the role‖ of the sister as that of ―a go-between who links the real and surrogate mothers together (vv. 7, 8).‖ 94 Houtman (Exodus vol.1, 268) poignantly observes: ―She acts as if Pharaoh‘s daughter has already decided to let the child live and to keep the boy for herself, and only wonders who can nurse him for her.‖ 95 Cassuto (Exodus, 20) exposits: ―In the girl‘s question the word K7lf lākh [‗for you,‘ ‗you‘] is used twice, as though to give the impression that she is making her suggestion only for the sake of the princess.‖ So also Phyllis Trible, ―Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows‖ in A Feminist Companion (ed. A. Brenner), 168. 96 Berlin (Poetics, 38) explains ―a character is ‗shown‘ is through his own words—his speech—and his actions‖ with the result that ―characters…further the plot and…create characterization.‖ 139
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.2.3.3 Pharaoh‟s Daughter The daughter of Pharaoh is nameless in the narrative, just as is Moses‘ mother (and father), and Moses‘ sister (and the Pharaoh himself!);97 nevertheless, her position is emphasized—she is the princess of Egypt. In the narrative her thoughts and perceptions are transmitted, her speech is eavesdropped, and her actions are witnessed. As a result, the Egyptian princess is a full-fledged character whose personage is openly revealed.98 1.2.3.3.1 Pharaoh‟s Daughter‟s Psyche The narratee and implied/real audience catch a glimpse of Pharaoh‘s daughter‘s internal composition at one point in particular.99 Despite the maternal trauma and cunning, and the familial protective proclivities, it is the Egyptian princess to whom the reader comes closest. 100 The narrative device hnh, that character focalizer wherefrom events are peered, conveys the unique perspective of the character to whom it is applied.
hnh is always associated with a perception verb, and in the case of the singular hnh of
Ex 2.1-10 it is linked with the verb h)r; yet, this is not the first time the princess has 101 perceived something significant. Previously the princess saw (√h)r) the (2.5); now, 102 having opened the , she sees (hnhw…wh)rtw) the infant (2.6). The increasing specificity of her perception, moreover, is intriguing; what is visually captivating to
Pharaoh‘s daughter zooms-in, as it were, progressively from the to the dly until the 103 narratee/reader looks through her eyes and sees a r(n. What specifically the princess beholds is lexically poignant. Whereas Pharaoh stipulated to kill every Nb (1.16, 22), what the princess sees is not a Nb but a r(n (2.6). Since in her vantage the infant is not a son but an orphan she can legitimately give him sanctuary; in other words, the daughter of Pharaoh could have exercised the logic: This boy used to be
97 See Ex 1.8 and 2.23 with Ex 1.11, 19, 22; 2.15. Only the two midwives are named in Ex 1.8-2.15. Cf. Naomi Steinberg, ―Feminist Criticism‖ in Methods for Exodus (ed. T.B. Dozeman), 178ff.; Meyers, Exodus, 36; Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 25. 98 Again, Berlin, Poetics, 38. 99 Cf. Tolmie, Narratology, 33. 100 See Van Wolde, ―Linguistic Motivation and Biblical Exegesis‖ in Narrative Syntax (ed. E. Van Wolde), 46-47; Berlin, Poetics, 62; See also Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 35; Tolmie, Narratology, 31-33; Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 49. 101 Dozeman (Exodus, 81) interprets ―They see the ark in the reeds…‖ when the morphology is clearly singular. Nevertheless, the text is ambiguous as to whether it was the princess or her maid who first saw the floating item. 102 See Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §71. 103 On angle through which narrative is transmuted, see Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 44-46. Pharaoh‘s daughter‘s twofold perception (h)r) of the (2.5b-6a) parallels Levi‘s daughter‘s twofold placing (My#) of the child and (2.3b). Further, whereas the mother sees (h)r) that her son is goodly, the princess sees (h)r) that the child is a crying boy…and has compassion. 140
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
someone‘s son (Nb), but since he is not in the protective care of a parent, ostensibly, then it is just a boy (r(n) who can become my son (Nb), and once he is the son of an Egyptian the edict does not apply to him.104 Can all this be extrapolated from the princess‘s frame of mind because of the perceptive particle hnh? Arguably so; for, it is not just a r(n but a crying r(n that evokes 105 from her compassion. lmx also has the semantic range and connotation of sparing something or someone for certain death (e.g., the plunder king Saul spared [lmx] instead of banning according to holy war stipulations [1 Sam 15.3, 9, 15]106).107 Therefore, just as the princess came to a realization (hnh) in her perception (h)r), so did her sparing act stem from 108 her compassion (lmx). 1.2.3.3.2 Pharaoh‟s Daughter‟s Speech (Internal and External) There are four points in the narrative at which the daughter of Pharaoh speaks.109 She says
(rm)), ―This one is from the Hebrew children‖ (2.6bβ); she says (rm)), ―Go‖ (2.8a); she says 110 (rm)), ―Take this child and nurse him for me, and I will surely give you wages‖ (2.9a); she says (rm)), ―From the water I drew him‖ (2.10b). In the second and third instances the princess speaks directly to an audient; in the former case the sister had previously addressed the princess with a question/proposal (esp. h@lf in the speech formulae), and in the latter instance—the longest utterance—the princess follows through, from the prior interaction, with the newly appointed Hebrew midwife. In the first and fourth instances of speech, however, an audience is not as readily discernible—or even whether she vocalized the words attributed to her.111 Initially Pharaoh‘s daughter commissions the retrieval of the and the rescue of what lies within; once she opens the and beholds the boy therein, she has the emotional
104 So Bachmann,―¿Qué hacían mientras tanto?,‖ 16. Indeed, this is an instance of direct showing, a literary phenomenon whereby ―the narrrator shows us what a character is thinking‖ (Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 35 [36-37]). 105 Interestingly, this is the only occurrence of lmx in the Tetrateuch (cf. Deut 13.9). 106 See Tremper Longman III and Daniel G. Reid, God is a Warrior (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995) 33-46; cf. Patrick D. Miller Jr., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973). 107 BDB, 328: ―spare, have compassion‖. So also HALOT, 328. 108 See Davies, Israel in Egypt, 112. 109 On direct speech, see Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 48. 110 Houtman (Exodus, vol.1, 283) elucidates the combination of the verbal construct (Nt)) and the personal pronoun (yn)) ―express that Pharaoh‘s daughter regards the boy as her own.‖ Mp indicates this construct only else in Lev 20.3, where God is the subject. 111 E.g., Houtman (Exodus, vol.1, 283) thinks she addresses her maid, the hm), while Cassuto (Exodus, 19) interprets self-thought. Cf. Robert Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981), 68. 141
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
112 response, .hz Myrb(h ydlym rm)tw (2.6bβ). Again, it is ambiguous whether she muttered this under her breath, announced it to her attendant(s), or thought these words.113 Typically when thought is conveyed in the Biblical Hebrew it is construed by the phraseology of speaking (with)in one‘s heart (e.g., Gen 8.21), albeit thoughts are not always narratologically packaged with such definitive formulae.114 The fourth and last instance of Pharaoh‘s daughter‘s speech presents the same 115 problem as above. She names him Moses saying or explaining (√rm)), whty#m Mymh-Nm (2.10b). This is the explanation of Moses‘ name, but did she actually verbally orate this etymological phrase—and immediately after Moses was presented to her? Perhaps Mymh-Nm whty#m was her standard explanation given whenever it came up in conversation, which would, at first, be quite often(?). Or, perhaps this whole naming episode was simply the way in which the narrator wanted to conclude the story (aetiology), one final datum spatially detached from how it falls linearly on the page or linearly in oration.116 1.2.3.3.3 Pharaoh‟s Daughter‟s Actions Actions are the result and fruition of thoughts and perception, vocalized or internalized. The actions inextricably linked with perception and thought have already been touched upon. Those examples include how espying the led to its retrieval; how opening the resulted in beholding the crying infant boy,117 which in turn blossomed compassion in Pharaoh‘s daughter; how the outgrowth of all this was indicative of the princess identifying the newborn as a Hebrew (2.5b-6). More directly, still, the princess‘s actions can be categorized by her mandating and adopting. The mandates of Pharaoh‘s daughter are best evidenced by the imperatives she pronounces. The princess imperatively directs the Hebrew girl to fetch (ykl) a nursing
112 GKC (§2b) comments, ―in the Old Testament Hebrews are only spoken of either when the name is employed by themselves as contrasted with foreigners…or when put in the mouth of those who are not Israelites…or, finally, when it is used in opposition to other nations…‖ Cf. Jonathan Cohen, The Origins and Evolution of the Moses Nativity Story (SHR, 58; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993), 21. 113 ―No reporting verbs like ‗she thought‘ or ‗she exclaimed‘ are used, as they would be in indirect discourse‖ (Davies, Israel in Egypt, 94). 114 Van der Merwe (―Discourse Linguistics,‖ 24) claims ―a dialogue can never be initiated by a wayyiqtol form.‖ However, the problem is that the phrase hz Myrb(h ydlym is verb-less; thus the ambiguity persists. Cf. Nicccacci, ―On the Hebrew Verbal System,‖ 120. 115 For rm)tw as explanatory here, see GKC §111d; Joüon-Muraoka §118j. 116 Pharaoh‘s daughter could have named the boy such shortly after she actually drew him out of the water, even knowing that she wouldn‘t take possession of him fully until he was later weaned. 117 Sarna (Exodus, 10) notes, ―[t]his is the only biblical report of a baby crying. Otherwise, the verb b- k-h always has an adult as its subject.‖ 142
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Hebrew woman (2.8a).118 Then when a nursing woman is presented before her, the princess imperatively commissions (ykylyh) her to nurse (whqnyhw) the babe. Both these commands are fulfilled, or obeyed (2.8b, 9b). At the end of the narrative Pharaoh‘s daughter adopts the foundling. When he is 119 grown and presented to the princess Nbl hl-yhyw, ―he became a son to her‖ (2.10a). This is more an event than a particular action exerted by the princess, nevertheless this event, this new relationship/status, is the culmination of the action put into motion heretofore. The second part of the adoptive process is her naming the child,120 which Pharaoh‘s daughter does 121 in the typical biblical fashion, i.e., name (wm#[-t)] )rqtw) + explanative etymology (√rm)) (2.10b).122 1.2.3.4 Pharaoh‟s Daughter‟s Attendants When the daughter of Pharaoh descends to the Nile to bathe,123 accompanying her is a group of young women (tr(n); these attendants apparently patrolled the riverbank (dy-l( tklh 124 r)yh) to presumably ensure the princess‘s privacy (2.5a). Yet when the daughter of
Pharaoh espies a floating vessel she singles out an hm), not a hr(n, to fetch the . It seems natural for this particular female to be the one who retrieves the item, since hm) has 125 126 the semantic implication of female slave and hr(n is merely a young girl. Yet, from whence did this servant figure appear?
118 This mandate was precipitated by the sister who entreated (the function of the imperative from a subordinate to a superior) yt)rqw Kl)h, ‗Shall I go and call…‘ (2.7aα). 119 Sarna (Exodus, 10) remarks, ―[t]he high infant mortality rate in the ancient world dictated that formal adoption and naming by the adoptive parent be postponed until after weaning, which took place at a far later age than it would in modern societies.‖ 120 Schectman (Women in the Pentateuch, 109) opines how ―[i]t is absurd to think that a child would remained unnamed for the entire length of his cursing and weaning. The delay is rather intended to highlight the naming—or rather, the revelation of the hero‘s identity—as the primary concern of the episode.‖ 121 Occurrences of wm#(-t)) )rqtw + √rm) = Gen 29.32, 33; 30.8, 11, 13, 18, 20, 24. Instances of just wm#[-t)] )rqtw are Gen 4.25; 19.37, 38; 35.18; 38.4, 5; Jdg 13.24; 1 Sam 1.20; 1 Chron 7.16. 122 ―Two etymologies are provided for the name Moses (mōšeh). The first underscores the adoption of Moses by the Pharaoh‘s daughter through the wordplay between ‗son‘ in Hebrew (ben) and in Egyptian (mose). …Exodus 2:10b could be paraphrased: ‗He became her son (ben). And she named him ―Son‖ (mōšeh)‘‖ (Dozeman, Exodus, 81). 123 It is not clear as to whether the princess actually does bathe or whether she never commenced said act. Also, as Hamilton (Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011], 21) points out, this attempt at ―bathing may be either for hygienic purposes or a part of some religious ritual. She is at the river either to clean her body or her soul, or maybe both.‖ 124 Sarna (Exodus, 9) specifies that locale was ―[o]ne of its [i.e. the river‘s] rivulets, where privacy and safety could be enjoyed, is certainly intended.‖ Similarly, Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 267. 125 hm) is defined as ―maidservant‖ (BDB, 51), ―slave‖ (HALOT, 61). 126 hr(n is a ―girl, damsel‖ (BDB, 655), ―attendant‖ (HALOT, 708). 143
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Since the tr(n are introduced initially and then an hm) is later specified, it stands to 127 reason that the hm) was among the company of the tr(n. Moreover, it is feasible that any one of the hr(nif/when singled out to execute an order became in that instance an hm); i.e., 128 when at the moment of serving the princess one is an hm). Whether or not it was compulsory for the girls to be at the princess‘s side they nonetheless form an entourage, a chorus,129 in spite of any nuanced serving roles specified. 1.2.3.5 Moses (cf. 2.2.2.1) Moses is perhaps the main character; although passive and mute, all action and conversation revolves around the Hebrew infant. Despite his centrality and import infant Moses still lingers in the narratological background as a flat character.130 Nevertheless, the sparse information and details given in the narrative still contribute to a portrayal of his character. This data includes how he was conceived, birthed, and grown, as well as his name in addition to other appellations. 1.2.3.5.1 Appellatives In the Infancy Narrative, Moses has a few appellative references. The initial appellative is the 131 term Nb (cf. 1.1.1.2): a son is born to the daughter of Levi (2.2) and later that same personage becomes the son of the daughter of Pharaoh (2.10). The most common pronominal referent for infant Moses however is dly. This pronoun is always definite in Ex 2.1-10, whether by the definite article (2.3, 6a, 7, 9b, 10) and/or by the demonstrative adjective hz 132 (2.6b, 9a). dly has the semantic range of ―child, son, boy, youth.‖ A third appellation employed only once is r(n (2.6). Since r(n is set in an appositional string with dly as well as a pronominal suffix (hkb r(n-hnhw dlyh-t) wh)rtw) it should be read as a synonym with the same; yet, why is such an elaborate explanation (gloss?) necessary? r(n essentially has the 133 same semantic range as dly, that being ―boy, lad, youth.‖ This appositional appellative is
127 The hm) may, alternatively, be a distinct personage within and comprising the princess‘s staff. Cf. Edward J. Bridge, ―Female Slave vs Female Slave: hmf)f and hxfp;#i in the HB,‖ JHS 12/2 (2012): 8. 128 Houtman (Exodus vol.1, 281) observes: ―For the actual bathing only her personal maid servant (hmf)f) went with her into the water.‖ Cf. Hamilton, Exodus, 18. 129 Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Subsidia Biblica, 13; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1990), 87. 130 Unless crying (Ex 2.6a) counts as speech, and growing and becoming named (Ex 2.10) can be seen as a dynamic interplay within the text. 131 Isbell, ―Exodus 1-2,‖ 43. 132 BDB, 409. HALOT, 412: ―boy, male child‖. 133 BDB, 655. HALOT, 707: ―lad, adolescent…young man…fellow, servant, attendant‖. 144
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
probably present in the text to stress that the infant is, in fact, a male—a Hebrew boy—and how scandalous that is in the immediate context (Ex 1).134 1.2.3.5.2 Conceived, Born, and Grown It is said that Moses is conceived and then birthed at the beginning of the story (2.2). Indeed, 135 the verbal pairing of dltw + rhtw is standard pregnancy–birth report in the Hebrew Bible. Yet how old is Moses at the end of the episode when he is presented to (be adopted by)
Pharaoh‘s daughter when he is grown (√ldg; 2.10)? This third verb is not so precise in birth contexts. Of all the times conception and birth is recorded in the Hebrew Bible the status of growth, or growing, is only mentioned four times in literary proximity.
In the first case there is Isaac (Gen 21). Sarah conceives (rhtw) and births (dltw) him (21.2), he is named (21.3), circumcised (21.4), there is a report of Abraham‘s age (21.5),
Sarah gives the name‘s etymology (21.6-7), and then it is conveyed how Isaac grew (ldgyw) 136 and was weaned (lmgyw) (21.8). In this instance being grown is probably the approximate age of three because of the verbal coupling of weaned.137 Unfortunately the pairing of the verbs ldgyw + lmgyw is unique only to the Isaac narrative, thus a paralleling norm cannot be established on this tenuous basis (see further 2.3.1).
A second time ldg is used in relation to rht and dlt is in the Judah and Tamar story (Gen 38). Judah‘s wife Shua conceives and bears forth three sons (38.3-5).138 The eldest marries Tamar, but then dies; the next eldest is made to marry the widow to fulfill duty, yet later dies. Shelah, the third son of Judah, is required to marry Tamar, though first he needs to grow up (√ldg; 38.11); although, even when Shelah was grown up (√ldg; 38.14) Judah does not give his third son in marriage to his daughter-in-law. The story continues, but in our present query we have to ask: Is being grown up equivalent to being a marriageable age? And what is a marriageable age, thirteen?
134 Cf. Ina Willi-Plein, ―Ort und Literarische Funktion der Geburtsgeschichte des Mose,‖ VT 41/1 (1991): 110-118. 135 1, 17 2 32, 33, 34, 35 5, 7, 17, 19, 23 3, 4 2 20 21 17 dltw + rhtw: Gen 4. ; 21. ; 29. ; 30. ; 38. ; Ex 2. ; 1 Sam 1. ; 2. ; 2 Kgs 4. ; 1 Ch 7.23; Isa 8.3; Hos 1.3, 6, 8 136 At the conclusion of the subsequent narrative about the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael it states that God was with Ishmael as he grew up (√ldg; Gen 21.20); yet, that scene commenced when Ishmael was fourteen years of age (cf. Gen 17.23-25 & Gen 21.2-5), so he grew up beyond (not to) the age of fourteen. 137 Westermann (Genesis 12-36 [trans. J.J. Scullion; CC, 2; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995], 338-339) comments, ―[a] child was usually weaned in its third year‖ and when ―[t]he child has survived this first and particularly dangerous stage of his life, and it could be expected now that he would continue on.‖ 138 Actually Er and Onan are conceived (rhtw) and born (dltw) (Gen 38.3, 4) while it is elliptically penned that Shelah only was born (dltw) (Gen 38.5). 145
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
The third instance where ldg appears in the general context of birth report is with
Samuel (1 Sam 1-3). Hannah conceived (rhtw) and bore (dltw) a son out of her barrenness (1.20). She does not go up to the temple of the Lord for the yearly sacrifice the subsequent year because Samuel is not yet weaned (√lmg; 1.21-23), but does go up the following year because he is weaned (√lmg; 1.24). Elkanah and Hannah sacrifice, present the boy to Eli (1.25) and after explaining everything (1.26-28) Hannah sings a song unto the LORD God (2.1-10). Afterward Elkanah and Hannah return home leaving the boy with Eli (2.11). Next there is a discourse regarding the wickedness of Eli‘s sons (2.12-17) which is contrasted to
Samuel (2.18-20). Finally, Hannah conceived (rhtw) and bore (dltw) three sons and two daughters (2.21a), and it is said that meanwhile Samuel grew before the LORD (√ldg; 2.21b)
…grew in stature and favour with the Lord and with mankind (√ldg; 2.26)…and the LORD was with Samuel as he grew up (√ldg; 3.19). The second usage of ldg is figurative and the other two occurrences literal. Overall, the Samuel example is either a loose example of the employment of the third verb, or it may simply be the case where several noteworthy episodes needed to be injected within the overall Samuel birth/growth story. Further, Samuel‘s age is indeterminate at any stage beyond his weaning. In a final case, we peer upon the miraculous birth by a Shunammite woman (2 Kgs 4).139 Having been visited by Elisha, and according to his prophecy, the Shunammite woman conceived (rhtw) and bore (dltw) a son (4.17); next, it is recorded that this boy is grown
(√ldg; 4.18a). He is at least old enough to be able to talk, for the next verse demonstrates this (4.19); yet beyond this information a more precise age is not known. Returning to Ex 2, Moses is restored to the daughter of Pharaoh when he is grown
(√ldg; 2.10). In this narrative unit the verb lmg does not appear, as it featured loosely with Samuel and tightly with Isaac. Moses is just merely grown. Is Moses three or thirteen? In the next pericope the text again states that Moses has grown (√ldg; 2.11), though here his age has traditionally been set at forty (Acts 7.23). Therefore, in the context of Ex 2.1-10 it is likely best to adduce that Moses is grown as in weaned,140 especially considering the fact that
139 This story has much commonality with the Isaac story. In both cases (1) the wife is barren, (2) she is visited by a ―man‖ of God, (3) he tells her she will conceive in a year‘s time, (4) and it is so. 140 ―Given the context,‖ says Propp (Exodus 1-18, 145), ―I would consider a conjectural emendation *wayyiggāmēl ‗and (he) was weaned,‘ vs. wayyigdal ‗and (he) grew.‘ The text could have been corrupted by anticipation of wayyigdal in v.11.‖ Cf. Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 288. 146
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
x2 Pharaoh‘s daughter hired the mother of Moses purely on the basis of her nursing (√qny; 2.7 , 9x2) him. Consequently, Moses is approximately three years old.141 1.2.3.5.3 Naming Finally at the end of the pericope the infant is named. Typically in Hebrew Bible birth report the conceiving and birthing of a child is recorded, thence the very next datum is the child‘s name and its etymological aetiology, though often this last addendum is unaccounted for (see 2.2.1).The Moses Infancy Narrative is unique in that these two pieces of information are separated by eight verses and a host of events. Moreover, whereas one female (biological mother) conceived and bore a son, another female (adoptive mother) announced the boy‘s name and its lexical derivation. Scholars often quibble about the alleged inconsistency of verbal tenses between the
Hebrew name Moses (h#m = to draw out) and its etymology meaning (whty#m = the drawn out one).142 The common judgment is that Moses should be named after the action he himself 143 received (yw@#Omf), rather than the action possessive of the princess (h#m). However, the possibility exists that the Egyptian princess intended his name to attest her action; accordingly, she (in her pride?) has essentially prophesied/foreshadowed that Moses will live up to his name, that is live up to fulfill what she herself has done—to draw out God‘s firstborn son (4.22) from the (Reed Sea) waters (chs.14-15)!144 Moreover, it is not necessarily by means of sloppy grammar that such a bilingually relevant name has been derived. Indeed, an Egyptian name could not come closer to a Hebrew etymology, arguably, than what is exhibited in Ex 2.10.145 To achieve a relevant name and corresponding etymology in two different languages is actually a remarkable feat!146
141 So Driver, Exodus, 11; Janzen, Exodus, 21; Hamilton, Exodus, 22. Contra Jub 47.9 which has Moses at twenty-one (21) years of age; cf. Exodus Rabbah 1.26 where he is two (2) years old. 142 E.g., Yee (―Postcolonial Biblical Criticism,‖ 221): ―The story also ridicules the daughter‘s faulty knowledge of Hebrew.‖ Cf. also Davies, Israel in Egypt, 114-115; Noth, Exodus, 26; Greifenhagen, Egypt, 62; Janzen, Exodus, 22. 143 Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 289. This verbal form occurs only elsewhere in 2 Sam 22.17 || Ps 18.16; see M. Buber, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant (New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row Publishers, 1958), 35-36. 144 Moses is ―‗the drawer-forth of his people‘, the man who had withdrawn the people of God from the flood‖ (Buber, Moses, 36), and thus the ―saved savior‖ (Rendtorff, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament [trans. David E. Orton; Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2005], 545). Cf. also Plastaras, Creation and Covenant (Milwaukee, Wisc.: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968), 101-102; Smith, Exodus, 21. 145 Golka, ―Aetiologies; Part 2,‖ 37: ―The meaning of the aetiological personal names…is always explained from the Hebrew, even when we are dealing with a foreign name and when the naming person is a foreigner (Moses).‖ 146 Schmid (Genesis and the Moses Story, 143): ―The narrator perhaps knew the Egyptian name Moses and its meaning, and transplanted the Egyptian etymology of Moses into a story that simultaneously put all the emphasis on Moses‘ being a ‗Hebrew,‘ and indeed, a Levite.‖ Likewise Childs, Exodus, 19; Meyers, Exodus, 147
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
It is widely attested that Moses, or Mose, is Egyptian for ―child of‖ (or ―birthed of‖),147 for instance Thutmose (―child of Thut‖), Ahmose (―child of Ah‖), Ptahmose (―child of Ptah‖), etc.148 That Moses‘ name, in Egyptian, lacks the deity prefix causes some to surmise there was once such a prefix, but that it had been dropped for orthodoxy sake.149 While this may be true, the absence of a (god) patronymic in the appellation is poignant; for, from the princess‘s vantage she does not know whose child it is, consequently he is -moses, ―child of (?).‖150 Furthermore, continuing in the vein of Egyptian name etymology, Moses‘ deity is not, as of yet, known; this will transpire in Ex 3-4 at Mt. Sinai/Horeb.151 1.2.4 Events The events of the Ex 2.1-10 story will now be examined through the lenses of outline and plotline, and then the actions specifically centrifugal to shall be parsed out. 1.2.4.1 Outline (cf. 2.2.1.1) The outline of the Exposed Infant Story, after the demarcation of acts and scenes, is as follows:152 I. Introduction (2.1-2) a. Levite married the daughter of Levi [2.1] b. She conceived and bore a son [2.2a] c. Mother sees child is goodly [2.2bα] d. She hides him for three months [2.2bβ] II. The Scheme (2.3-4) a. Mother takes a papyrus [2.3aα] i. She modifies (waterproofs) it [2.3aβ] b. Child is concealed in the [2.3bα] c. The is concealed in reeds of the Nile [2.3bβ] d. The baby‘s sister outposts nearby [2.4] III. The Outcome (2.5-6) a. Princess‘ attendants survey riverbed [2.5a] b. Princess spots the [2.5bα] i. Commissions retrieval thereof [2.5bβ] c. She opens finding a crying boy [2.6a] d. She pities the recognized Hebrew boy [2.6b]
44; Olson, ―Literary and Rhetorical Criticism,‖ 40; Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 32-33; Siebert-Hommes, Let the Daughters Live!, 120; Ackerman, ―Literary Context,‖ 94-95; Childs, ―The Birth of Moses,‖ 114; Propp, Exodus 1-18, 152-153; Durham, Exodus, 16; Cf. Feldman, ―Philo‘s View,‖ 268. 147 G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1962), 53. 148 For a detailed exposé of the Egyptian aspect of Moses‘ name see J.G. Griffiths, ―The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses,‖ JNES 12/4 (1953): 225-231. 149 B.W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 50: ―Royal children born on the anniversary of a particular deity were named in this fashion; and sometimes pharaohs of the Nineteenth Dynasty were referred to in the shortened form, Mose, without the name of the deity.‖ Cf. McNeile, The Book of Exodus (Westminster Commentary; London: Methuen & Co., 1908), 9. 150 Alternatively, ―many modern writers have referred it to two Coptic words, mo ‗water‘ and uše ‗saved‘‖ (McNeile, Exodus, 8). Cf. Hertz, ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs (2nd ed.; London: Soncino Press, 1960), 211. 151 Of course, the protagonist‘s name is not, at that point, augmented to, say, Ya-mose, or the like. 152 For other outlines of the same pericope see: Finlay, Birth Report Genre, 232-233; Davies, Israel in Egypt, 99; Coats, Exodus 1-18, 25-26; Siebert-Hommes, Let the Daughters Live!, 70-71. 148
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
IV. The Arrangement (2.7-9) a. The Sister proposes fetching a nursing Hebrew woman for the infant [2.7] b. The princess consents [2.8a] c. The sister executes plan [2.8b] d. The princess makes weaning arrangements with the infant‘s mother [2.9aα] i. Wages are included [2.9aβ] e. The mother fulfills the arrangement [2.9b] V. Conclusion (2.10) a. Mother returns grown child to princess [2.10aα] b. The child becomes the princess‘s son [2.10aβ] c. Princess names the boy Moses [2.10bα] i. Giving explanatory etymology [2.10bβ] It is evident from the outline that this story is a tightly packed series of events, both told and untold. 1.2.4.2 Plotline Plotlines are often schematised with some semblance of a pediment shape, indicating five major moves in a plot: exposition, rising action, turning point (or climax), falling action, and resolution (or denouement).153 In the story of the Hebrew Foundling (Ex 2.1-10) the exposition coincides with the introduction of the story, that being 2.1-2. The rising action begins after the three month period of concealment is expired and alternate measures are enacted; a scheme is set into motion and the action continues to heighten until Pharaoh‘s daughter beholds a crying baby boy (2.3-6a). The turning point is when Pharaoh‘s daughter takes pity for the Hebrew infant (2.6b); indeed, up until this emotional disclosure the text is ambiguous (probably intentionally so) as to whether events are on their way to a decrescendo or a crescendo.154 After the turning point events become favourable for baby, the mothers, and the families at large. The falling action comprises all the events necessary to ensure the baby‘s safety, sustainment, and growth (2.7-9). Finally, the resolution is realized when the boy is weaned by the biological mother and adopted by the Egyptian princess who names him Moses (2.10). 1.2.4.3 (cf. 1.2.6.4 & 2.3.3) Nearly every event centres on Moses who (in text-time) spends most of the time nestled within the . It is the which is made by Moses‘ mother, the that is espied by Moses‘ sister, the from which a cry is heard by Pharaoh‘s daughter and her attendant(s), the out of which the infant is exhumed—the comes in contact with
153 Of course, other models could be advanced such as the narrative penta-vector schematic set forth by Jean Calloud in his Structural Analysis of Narrative (trans. Daniel Patte; SBL Semeia Supplements, 4; Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1976), 29. 154 Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 278: ―For just a moment the design of the mother and the sister seems to collapse in total failure. However, the outcome is one they themselves could not have imagined.‖ 149
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
nearly every character of the Infant Exposure Story! Indeed, the vessel under examination is here both an object of transitive action and intransitive action alike (cf. ch.2 1.2.3.6). After the infant, whose bassinet is the buoyant vessel, is rescued, the tebāh fades away from the scope of the narrator. It has apparently completed its usefulness. Tebāh carries the babe from one mother to another. 1.2.5 Time 1.2.5.1 Time of Narration and Narrated Time In this unit the contour of time, i.e. its acceleration and deceleration, for both the text and the story shall be mapped. The text-time is measured in words or lines according to BHS, and the story-time is measured, insofar as possible via estimations, by real-time, e.g. minutes, hours, etc. Paraphrased Events Text-Time Story-Time Technique 1 Introduction of Moses Parents 6 words - Pause 2 Conception and Birth of Moses 4 words 9 months Summary 3 Mother fearful of Moses‘ goodliness 5 words Instant Slowdown 4 Moses hid for three months 3 words 3 months Summary 5 Mother‘s Construction of 1 line Hours? Summary 6 Moses placed in 3 words Moment Scene 7 Mother (et al.) goes to the Nile - Hour? Ellipsis 8 Mother Places within the reeds 4 words Moment Scene 9 Mother returns home - Hour? Ellipsis 10 Sister stationed and watching 6 words Hours? Summary 11 Pharaoh‘s daughter (et al.) go to bath in Nile 4 words Minutes Summary 12 Attendants walk the riverbed 4 words Minutes Summary 13 Pharaoh‘s daughter sees in the reeds 4 words Instant Slowdown 14 She sends her maid to get it 3 words Minute? Summary 15 Pharaoh‘s daughter opens 1 word Moment Scene 16 She beholds infant Moses crying 6 words Instant Slowdown 17 She has compassion on him 2 words Instant Slowdown 18 Pharaoh‘s daughter verbally identifies child 4 words Moment Scene 19 Sister offers to find a Hebrew wet-nurse 1.5 lines Moments Scene 20 Pharaoh‘s daughter verbally consents 3 words Moment Scene 21 Sister goes and gets her/his mother 5 words Hours? Summary 22 Pharaoh‘s daughter‘s weaning arrangement 1 line Moment Scene 23 Mother nurses/weans Moses 4 words 2-3 Years Summary 24 The boy grew 2 words 2-3 Years Summary 25 Mother brings child to Pharaoh‘s daughter 2 words Hour? Summary 26 Moses becomes Pharaoh‘s daughter‘s 1 word Instant Slowdown 27 Pharaoh‘s daughter Names Moses 7 words Moment Scene
At this juncture the literary technique by which the story has been crafted may be parsed.
150
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.2.5.1.1 Frequency and Order No repetition is crafted in the story, thus rendering the frequency singular.155 This story is extremely linear and undergoes considerable progression, for the ubiquitous wayyiqtol conjugation (32/46) more than anything conveys sequential succession.156 1.2.5.1.2 Tempo Several methods of communicating duration have been employed in the above story. These rhetorical techniques are scene (or scenic representation): an event that essentially is equivalent between text-time and story-time; summary: events that are moderately shorter in text-time than in story-time; slowdown: where story-time is moderately more terse than text- time; pause: when story-time is infinitely slower than the text-time; ellipsis: when the absence of text-time is by virtue a temporal gap in the story-time text.157 Each tactic is employed by the narrator to craft the story‘s overall time contour. Speech most accurately captures scenic representation, for the transcribed word parrots the spoken word.158 Thus conversations between the sister and the princess (row 19- 20), and the princess‘s commission to the mother (row 22) best represent real-time. Internal speech, or thoughts, are perhaps best categorized as scene, though they are likely more imprecise than vocalized speech (either quicker or lengthier); examples include when Pharaoh‘s daughter identifies the baby as Hebrew (row 18) and when she names said boy (row 27). Also, instant actions are cases when the time of narration effectively overlays narrated time; these cases include Jochebed setting her infant into the (row 6) and setting the container and content amongst the reeds (row 8), as well as the princess opening the (row 15). Months and years are summarized in order to abridge the story and condense the action.159 The entire pregnancy period is merely referenced (row 2), the initial period of shrouding the newborn is only just mentioned (row 4), and the weaning/growing years are quite swiftly narrated (row 23+24160).161 Other shorter summaries relay the travel time from point A to point B, where one character treks toward another character, place, and/or object
155 One character enacting part of another character‘s speech, that is to say fulfilling a command, is not technically a repetition. 156 Joüon-Muraoka §118c, d, g. 157 Tolmie, Narratology, 94; Ska, “Our Fathers”, 12. 158 Cf. Bar-Efrat, Narrative Art, 148; Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 56. 159 ―Verbs of action make a story move,‖ says Walsh, ―and the greater their frequency in the text the faster the past of the story‖ (Old Testament Narrative, 54). Such is the case here. 160 These are really the same event recorded in two alternate ways in order to be faithful to the biblical text. 161 E.g., 1 Sam 2.21 (ldg + dltw + rhtw); 2 Kgs 4.17 (dltw + rhtw), 18 (ldg). 151
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
(and back), such as the princess descending to the river with the intention of bathing (row 11), a maid fetching the (row 14), Miriam retrieving Jochebed (row 21), Jochebed going to Pharaoh‘s daughter to present the boy for adoption (row 25). Similarly, there are other instances of standing (row 10) and sauntering (row 12) that are summarized. One final accelerated motion (summary) is the modification done to the (row 5). It is interesting to note that nearly every time the story tempo slows down it is in conjunction with Pharaoh‘s daughter‘s reactions to Moses.162 The film retards to slow- motion, as it were, when capturing her sighting the vessel from which the infant cries exude (row 13), when she beholds the infant himself (row 16), when her compassion wells up for the infant (row 17), and when the boy is reunited to her and he becomes her own (row 26). The only other case of slowdown involves the mother‘s gazing upon her newborn (row 3), just as the princess does. Thus the object of slowdown in every instance is Moses; the narrator consequently stresses the significance of Moses through the device of the emotional reactions/responses drawn out in the story‘s deceleration. Only one pause is felt in the narrative flow. It takes place at the beginning of the Ex 2.1-10 pericope and serves as an introductory backdrop to the story (row 1).163 In the broader context of Ex 1.15–2.10, alternatively, this pause may have a slightly different function; as M. Sternberg points out, pausing or ―‗freezing‘ of the action at any given moment reveals a crisscross of perspectival variations among the dramatis personae as well as between them and the other observers.‖164 Certainly this perspectival shift is felt at Ex 2.1. There are a couple elliptical events which are implied to have transpired.165 Earlier it was stated that several summaries relay the travel time between point A and point B; there are two more short journeys implied in the story though completely absent from the text‘s record. Moses‘ mother and sister made a trek to the river (row 7) after Jochebed set her infant into the (2.3bα) and before setting the into the reeds (2.3bβ). Thence, Miriam stayed
162 Walsh (Old Testament Narrative, 54) mentions how ―a high ratio of nominal clauses…of subordinate clauses, or of circumstantial clauses will slow the tempo of the story considerably.‖ 163 Cf. Bar-Efrat (Narrative Art, 146) explains how ―[t]ime stops in two situations: a. when interpretations, explanations, conclusions or evaluations are given by the narrator; b. when depictions are given within the narrative.‖ 164 Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 176. 165 Ellipsis is ―the system of gaps, developed primarily to direct attention to what has not been communicated, becomes the central device whereby the narrator gradually establishes his ironic framework‖ (Sternberg, Poetics of Biblical Narrative, 192). Cf. Walsh, Old Testament Narrative, 76. 152
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
near the locale of the baby‘s resting place, and Jochebed returned home (row 9).166 This information must be for the narrator superfluous data since it is most definitely implied. 1.2.6 Setting (cf. 2.2.2.2) Several data elucidate the environment of Ex 2.1-10. There is a river and there are several items and areas particular to that river. Examination of each of these elements will facilitate in envisioning the physical and social setting of the Infant Exposure story. 1.2.6.1 The Nile and Egypt
J. Siebert-Hommes is correct in not translating r)yh as ―Nile‖ for every occurrence, for r)yh 167 also refers to the Euphrates elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Nevertheless, r)yh does refer here to the Nile River—the renown of Egypt.168 Several Egyptian gods are associated with the Nile and spectacular doctrines are thereby derived (see ch.6).169 The broader topography, beyond the Nile River, is Egypt; yet specific regions can also be known. Near the end of the Genesis record, the migration of the Israelites southward is commissioned with the following parlance: ―settle‖ ―the land of Egypt…in the best part of the land…Goshen‖ (47.6).170 In a later parallel statement it is conveyed how the Israelites indeed ―settled…in the land of Egypt, in the best part of the land, in the land of Rameses‖ (47.11).171 Hence Goshen and Rameses are essentially set in apposition, or in a region/city- state cohesion.172 Moreover, near the beginning of Exodus, the book opens to find the Egyptians exploiting the Israelites; the latter ―built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and 173 Raamses‖ (1.11b). ―The former lies at Tell er-Retiâbeh, west of Lake Timsâhi in northeastern Egypt; the latter is none other than the ancient Hyksos capital Avaris, rebuilt and again made the capital by Sethos I and Ramesses II, and called by the latter the ‗House of
166 Houtman (Exodus vol.1, 279) writes: ―It may be assumed that she returned home.‖ In addition, Houtman (Exodus vol.1, 267) would add the princess bathing as another textually elliptical event. 167 Let the Daughters Live!, 34; Eising and Bergman, ―r)oy:,‖ TDOT 5: 359. 168 Cf. Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 108. 169 Eising and Bergman, TDOT 5:360; E.A. Wallis Budge, Egyptian Religion: Ideas of the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (New York: Gramercy Books, 1959). 170 Goshen: Gen 45.10; 46.28, 29, 34; 47.1, 4, 6, 27; 50.8; Ex 8.22; 9.26; Josh 10.41; 11.16; 15.51. 171 Rameses: Gen 47.11; Ex 12.37; Num 33.3, 5. 172 Much like Holland, the provincial home to the country‘s capital (Amsterdam), is used synonymously for The Netherlands. Cf. Greifenhagen, Egypt, 39-40. 173 For more details on these cities see Redford, ―Exodus I 11,‖ VT 13/4 (1963): 401-418; idem, ―The Land of Ramesses‖ in Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane (eds. P.J. Brand and L. Cooper; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 175-177; Wolfgang Helck, ― und Die Ramses-Stadt,‖ VT 15/1 (1965): 35-48; Charles F. Aling, ―The Biblical City of Ramses,‖ JETS 25/2 (1982): 129-137; Cf. also Greifenhagen, Egypt, 54 n.31; Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 125-127. 153
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Ramesses.‘‖174 These twin cities are within the province of Goshen, and these settlements are the saturated locale of the Hebrew immigration within Egypt near the Nile, as per the biblical account.175 1.2.6.2 Papyrus, Bitumen and Pitch 176 Other than its occurrence in Ex 2.3, )mg, ―papyrus,‖ appears throughout the Hebrew Bible thrice else.177 In Job 8.11 the word stands in synonymous parallelism.
Can papyrus [)mg] grow where there is no marsh? Can reeds [wx)] flourish where there is no water? These rhetorical questions of course beg the answer no; there are niether any papyrus nor reeds without wetland.178 In Isaiah 18.2 a strong link is made between ―papyrus‖ and paralleling references; there we read of Mym-ynp-l( )mg-ylkbw, ―papyrus vessels [floating] upon the surface of the waters‖ (18.2a) which are in setting of #wk-yrhnl, ―the rivers of Cush‖ (Isa 18.1). This in all likelihood is the same river as the Nile179 where another, smaller papyrus vessel was afloat and whose passenger was infant Moses.
Later in the book of Isaiah there is synthetic parallelism utilizing )mg: the burning sand shall become a pool, and the thirsty ground springs of water; the haunt of jackals shall become a swamp, the grass shall become reeds and rushes. (Isa 35.7)
In the fourth colon of the above stanzas ―reeds‖ (hnq) and ―rushes‖ ()mg) are arranged as a 180 hendiadys which parallel ―swamp‖ (hcbr) in the third colon. This hendiadys indicates that the two elements are in apposition and highly similar in nature. In our previous chapter we 181 saw that, taking the emendation suggested by E. Ullendorff, for one, hnq also featured in the construction of Noah‘s (Gen 6.14).
174 John Bright, A History of Israel (3rd ed.; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1981), 121. See also John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller, eds., Israelite and Judean History (OTL; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1977), 153. 175 Cf. Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 106-107. 176 BDB, 167; HALOT, 196. 177 A verbal form with the same tri-consonantal root, )mg, means ―to swallow‖ (BDB, 167; HALOT, 196); presumably, it was thought that papyrus/reeds swallow river water. 178 It is interesting to note that papyrus, and not reeds, feature in the Infant Story—especially considering the fact that reeds (wx)) are phonetically and etymologically synthetic with brother (x)). Moreover, ―his brother‖ (wx)) would be congruent to ―reeds‖ (wx)). The NIV in Hos 13.15 departs from the majority of versions when it translates wx) as ―his brothers‖ instead of ―reeds.‖ 179 In fact, the RSV translates #wk-yrhnl as Nile. 180 Actually, the final position in each of the four stiches has an aquatic referential parallel. 181 ―Construction,‖ 95-96. 154
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Historically ―the Nile was formerly flanked by thickets of papyrus‖;182 and this ―reed is 10-16 ft. tall, and three inches thick at its base. It is three-sided, and bears a kind of large, grass-like tuft at the top.‖183 There were many uses for this reed, including ―raw material for sandals, cordage, and especially for the construction of light, swift boats‖, ―the most famous, of course, being writing material.‖184 Basketry was also made out of reed, rushes, and grasses.185
The two ingredients with which Jochebed coated the were rmx and tpz (2.3aβ).
The first item (rmfxiI) connotes asphalt or bitumen, and a cognate (rmexo) denotes mortar or clay 186 187 (see Gen 11.3; 14.10; Ex 1.14). The second ingredient (tpz) is pitch (see Isa 34.9). 188 Syntactically these two words are to be taken as hendiadys (tpzbw rmxb hrmxtw; 2.3aβ). The pungency of these materials has given rise to interpretations accommodative of its toxicity.189 One mineral mixed with bitumen in order to compose palpable mastic was ―pulverised brick‖190—which is striking considering Ex 1.14—and perhaps the most common ingredient to concoct bituminous mastic was fine straw191—again significant since brickmaking in Egypt is recorded to involve straw in Ex 5. 1.2.6.4 (cf. 2.2.1.3) The constitution of the includes the above items (papyrus, and bitumen and pitch) and is set in the above locale (Nile).192 In her second stage of infant concealment, Jochebed took
(√xql) a composed of papyrus or reed (2.3aβ). This again implies that the was already constructed and that the mother improved upon the structure for her purposes by
182 Charles Singer and E.J. Holmyard, eds., A History of Technology, vol.1: From Early Times to Fall of Ancient Empires (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), 730. 183 Shewell-Cooper, ZEB 1:693. 184 Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 29; cf. Singer and Holmyard, eds., History of Technology, 731. 185 R.J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, v.4 (Leiden: Brill, 1987), 180-195. 186 BDB, 330; HALOT, 330-331. There are more cognates meaning heap and homer (ibid.). ―Clay mortar is simply the ordinary Nile alluvium, consisting of clay and sand, which for use is mixed with sufficient water to bring it to the required consistency, with sometimes the addition of a little chopped straw‖ (A. Lucas and J.R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries (London: Edward Arnold, 1962), 75 [49-50]). Cf. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 22; K.A. Kitchen, ―From the Brickfields of Egypt,‖ TB 27 (1976): 137-147. 187 BDB, 278; HALOT, 277. 188 Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 276: ―LXX: a0sfaltopi/ssh? (both terms are translated with one term).‖ 189 ―The rabbis noticed the difference in the caulking of Noah‘s ark both inside and out with pitch and that of Moses which had slime inside. This was to keep the water out and at the same time to remove the babe Moses from the odor of pitch‖ (Lewis, Interpretation of Noah and the Flood, 137). 190 Forbes, Ancient Technology, vol.1, 58. 191 Forbes, Ancient Technology, vol.1, 61, 63. 192 J. Cohen (Moses Nativity Story, 8) maintains: ―The detailed account of the ark‘s construction…is not justified by its context in the narrative. This indicates that the origins of the motif are not in the biblical story itself, rather in some archetype to which the biblical story is heir.‖ 155
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
besmearing it with bitumen and pitch (2.3aβ). So, where did Jochebed acquire this premade ? It has been suggested that the was nothing more than the ubiquitous moulds used to make the bricks which the Hebrews were enslaved to manufacture copiously.193 K.A. Kitchen describes the object as ―a shallow rectangular brickmould;‖194 R.J. Forbes notes the brick mould dimensions of the Sargonic period are 14" × 14" × 2½".195 If this identification is correct, then the in which Moses was hid would certainly have been inconspicuously camouflaged in its environs, brick factory that it was (Ex 1.14; 5.7, 8, 14, 16, 18, 19)— especially in light of the fact that the , made of papyrus, was nestled amongst a cluster of erect reeds along the riverbank (2.3b, 5; see 1.2.6.2 above).196
Later it is said that Pharaoh‘s daughter opens (wxtptw) the (2.6aα). To open the container implies that it had a lid or some kind of opaque covering, for when having done so she was then able to see the content therein: the child (2.6aβ).197 Does Moses‘ , then, contain a hskm like Noah‘s (Gen 8.13)? Interestingly, the only other object in the 198 Pentateuch that contains a covering/lid (hskm) is the tabernacle, the very same edifice which, aside from Noah‘s tebāh, is the only structure blueprinted by Deity (cf. ch.2 2.3.2.1.3). Though a lid is the more conceptually logical term,199 the Akkadian lexeme bābu, ―door‖ or ―hatch,‖ is perhaps the more analogous option; indeed, Utnapishtim‘s vessel had a door/hatch (Gilgamesh XI 88, 93) as well as Sargon‘s basket (Sargon, 6) (see ch.4 1.3, 1.4).200
193 Sarna (Exploring Exodus, 22) says, ―[t]he artisan who actually molded the bricks would receive from the workers baskets of water-soaked clay mixed with stubble gathered from the fields. He would then shape the material either by hand or in a rectangular wooden mold. The brick would then be left to dry in the sun for about three days and then turned over, so that the entire process took just about a week.‖ 194 ―From the Brickfields of Egypt,‖ TB 27 (1976): 140. 195 Ancient Technology, vol.1, 69. 196 ―The container that held the infant Moses was placed among the ‗reeds,‘ in Hebrew suf, a term borrowed from the Egyptian for ‗papyrus/reed thicket.‘ …It may well be that the rare word suf has been selected in the present text because it is allusive, prefiguring Israel‘s deliverance at the Sea of Reeds (Hebrew: yam suf)‖ (Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 29). Indeed, there is considerable semantic overlap between the lexemes )mg and Pws; see BDB, 167 and 693. 197 Stuart (Exodus, 88 n.115) says this cover was ―giving protection from insects and the sun much better that a typical basket would.‖ 198 E.g., Ex 26.14; 35.11; 36.19; 39.34; 40.19; Num 3.25; 4.8, 10, 11, 12, 25 (also, the fat covering/layer of a sacrifice [Lev 9.19]). Cf. the only other occurrences in Isa 14.11; 23.18; Ezek 27.7. 199 So Speiser, ANET 119:6. 200 Lewis, The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero who was Exposed at Birth (ASOR Diss. Series, 4; Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1980), 46. Lewis also states (idem.), ―The description of Sargon‘s receptable [sic] clearly evokes images of vessels, which nautical terminology is employed (i.e., bābu = hatch).‖ 156
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.3 Summary Viewing Ex 2.1-10 through a synchronic lens, we have seen it to be a tightly packed narrative with dramatic action, thematic tensions and resolutions, and exquisite linguistic symmetry. With regards to specifically, it was demonstrated that it is centrifugal to most events and nearly every character of the story; also, is a predominate setting, itself being a fusion of many other features of the broader space. Further, the implied lid of the Exodus is curious and is essentially the only physical resemblance to the Genesis (as well as their Akkadian–Babylonian counterparts), apart from the exact designation for said vessels: hbt. 2. Diachrony
The pericope Ex 2.1-10 has been the base text for our analysis thus far—for it is precisely therein is present; and it shall continue to be the locus for Formen/Gattungenkritik as well. However, when it comes to the other diachronic methods of exegesis, i.e. Literarkritik and Komposition/Redaktionskritik, our locus must expand to embrace the totality of Ex 1 and 2. This measure is undertaken for the purpose of thorough exegesis; and, ultimately, Literarkritik and Komposition/Redaktionskritik cannot be performed without the wider scope.
2.1 Literarkritik The undertakings of Literarkritik are [1] setting the textual limits, the starting and ending point, of the Moses Infancy Story; [2] determining the story‘s unity (Einheitlichkeit) and/or disunity (Uneinheitlichkeit) by recognizing any tensions (Spannungen) and repetitions (Wiederholungen) in the text; [3] identifying the author(s) of the textual unit(s); [4] establishing a Literargeschichte, ordering the textual units in relation to one another.201 2.1.1 Beginning and Ending of the Moses Infancy Story (cf. 1.1.1.2) Ex 2.1-10 is demarcated in BHS by lacunae, one before its start and one at its finish. These lacunae are likely set in place as such since this pericope is a self-supportive story of Moses‘ infancy; the previous pericope(s) (1.8/15-22) depicts the state of the Hebrew people (slavery)
201 Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety: Perspectives on Multidimensional Exegesis (CBET, 19; Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos, 1996), 102-104; Koch, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method (trans. S.M. Cupitt; New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1969), 70. 157
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
in Egypt and how that directly affects the Israelites‘ progeny, and the subsequent pericope (2.11-25) relays events of Moses‘ adulthood.202 A marriage/sexual union report is a natural way to commencing a new literary unit (2.1); and the appellative aetiology for the one begat may be seen as a fitting close of a literary unit (2.10). Typically these two data, in the Hebrew Bible, are essentially one 203 inseparable report. In a few case the conception/birth (dltw + rhtw) and naming (*M#) data are disjointed for the insertion of some pertinent information; for example, it is relayed that Enoch the city was named after Enoch the person, Cain‘s son (Gen 4.17); in the Isaac birth story the interjected datum is that Abraham has indeed experienced a fulfilled promise from God (Gen 21.2-3); in the birth report of Joseph Rachel declares jubilation before naming her child (Gen 30.23-24); in Rachel‘s final birthing the intervening material is conveyance of the great difficulty of the childbirth to the end that she lost her life (Gen 35.16b-18).204 Ex 2 is an example of the above phenomenon—though having the largest amount of intervening material. Indeed, if Ex 2b-10a were extracted the remainder images the typical biblical occurrences of conception/birth–naming/aetiology report (2.1-2a, 10b).
…Nb dltw h#)h rhtw ywl-tb-t) xqyw ywl tybm #y) Klyw 2.1-2a
.whty#m Mymh-Nm yk rm)tw h#m wm# )rqtw 2.10b
Hence, the beginning and ending of the Moses Infancy Story are well defined. 2.1.2 The Einheitlichkeit and/or Uneinheitlichkeit of the Moses Infancy Story (cf. 1.2.3.2 & 2.2.1.4) Ostensibly Ex 2.1-10 is a textual unity. Since a definitive frame encircles the narrative (2.1- 2a, 10b) all the events sandwiched between the conception/birth report and the naming report factor into the particular appellation given, buttressing the veracity of a cohesive unit. Also, synchronic exegesis demonstrates uniformity of syntactical structure and consistency in the usage of lexemes and motifs throughout the story.
202 Ska (“Our Fathers”, 34) maintains ―Exod 2 can be divided into three short ‗episodes‘ of Moses‘ life. The first recounts his birth and salvation (2,1-10), the second his first steps into public life (2,11-15), and the third the meeting at the well leading to his marriage (2,16-22).‖ So Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 269; J. Cohen, Moses Nativity Story, 14. 203 In the following citations *M# + dltw + rhtw are in close lexical proximity: Gen 29.32, 33, 34, 35; 30.5-6, 7-8, (10)-11, (12)-13, 17-18, 19-20, 21; 38.3, 4, 5; 1 Sam 1.20; 1 Ch 7.23; Isa 8.3; Hos 1.3-4, 6, 8-9. The verses enclosed by brackets, (), lack rhtw. 204 In this last case rhtw is assumed and dltw takes an alternate verbal form to suit the story better. 158
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Some are concerned, however, with the sister‘s belated introduction in the story as an instance of disunity;205 although this is not necessarily the conclusion that has to be drawn. In fact, quite often in biblical narrative a character is introduced in the story at the precise moment when that character engages in action; in other words, whatever action is in the narrative foreground the personal conduit of that action is consequently brought to the fore.206 Granted, the instances of such (seemingly) belated character introductions typically include a brief backstory that helps to reconcile the analepses; regardless, analepses is quite common in Hebrew narrative.207 Similar to the above issue, there is the matter of reconciling what appears to be a marriage report and hence the birth of a supposed firstborn with the presence of a grown daughter.208 Is this incongruously conflicting information? Not necessarily; perhaps what is intended to be conveyed is that after the Pharaoh‘s edict to kill newborn boy Amram and Jochebed had sexual congress regardless. If this interpretation is correct, then the Levite couple was gambling on having (another) girl, but in fact they had a boy; thus Moses would be the firstborn child to Amram and Jochebed (2.1) after the inauguration of the death edict (1.22; cf. Jub 47.3). 2.1.3 Authorship of the Moses Infancy Story The sturdiest criterion by which issues of authorship can be determined, namely the employment of particular names for the Deity, are absent in Ex 2.1-10 and its immediate anterior and posterior context. To envelope this criteria our scope needs to expand to include the entirety of Ex 1-2. When the scope is thus expanded, only the Divine appellation Elohim is present: Ex 1.17, 20, 21; 2.23, 24x2, 25x2. But does this indicate textual unity? The Priestly authorial stratum is readily detectable with its preferential and distinctive terminology, the conceptual motifs thereof, and other such theological concerns.209 In Ex 1-2 these phenomena comprise the following: [1] an abridged genealogy in Ex 1.1-5 (cf. Gen 5*,
205 E.g., Hermann Gunkel, The Folktale in the Old Testament (Michael D. Rutter, trans.; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1987), 131; W.H. Schmidt, Exodus I: 1,1–6,30 (BKAT II/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsverein, 1988), 51-55; Levin, Der Jahwist (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 320; Peter Weimar, ―Exodus 1,1-2,10 als Eröffnungskomposition des Exodusbusches‖ in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation (BETL, 127; ed. M. Vervenne; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996), 182 n.14; Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 140 n.586. Cf. Noth (Exodus, 25), though he posits that the sister expansion was made by the same hand as the rest of the brief story: J. 206 So Coats, Exodus 1-18, 27. 207 E.g., Jethro is a confidant to Moses from Ex 3-17 but only explicitly stated as such via analepses in Ex 18.1; Balak is a spectator of the Israelite‘s conquest against the Amorites in Num 21.21-35 yet this is not actually known until Num 22.2; etc. See Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 272. 208 See Houtman, Exodus, vol.1, 272, 289; J. Cohen, Moses Nativity Story, 117. 209 See e.g. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches (Louisville, Ky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996), 118-120; Michaela Bauks, ―Genesis 1 als Programmschrift der Priesterschrift (PG),‖ in Studies in the Book of Genesis (ed. A. Wénin), 337-340. 159
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
10-11*, etc.) which mirrors P‘s predilection for large-scale chronicling and ordering;210 [2] x2 x2 the lexemes Cr#, ―swarm‖ (cf. Gen 1.20 , 21; 7.21 ; 8.17; 9.7), )lm, ―fill‖ (Gen 1.22, 28;
6.11, 12; 9.1), and hrp and hbr, ―fruitful‖ and ―increase‖ (Gen 1.22, 28; 8.17; 9.1, 7; 17.20)211 in Ex1.7—all of which mimics creation and new creation (i.e., flood) verbiage;212 213 too, the peculiar phrase d)m d)mb is Priestly (cf. Gen 17.2, 6, 20 [Ezek 9.9; 16.13]); [3] the legally loaded word Krp, ―severity, ruthless,‖ in Ex 1.13, 14 which is only elsewhere used 214 in Lev 25 (vv.43, 46, 53) and Ezek 34.4; also, the verbal form rb( is employed only here x3 x2 in Ex 1.13, 14 to refer to labour or slavery (cf. the noun form hrwb( in 1.14 ; 2.23 ), yet it is used in the sense of cultic worship as well (Ex 3.12; 4.23; et passim);215 [4] the recollection 18 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, (rkz) of tyrb, in Ex 2.24, which finds antecedent with the Noahic (Gen 6. ; 9. 16)216 and Abrahamic (Gen 17.2, 4, 7x2, 9, 10, 11, 13x2, 14, 19x2, 21) covenants.217 Consequently, biblical scholarship is pervasively consistent with noting the P strand accordingly:218 Ex 1.1-5, 7, 13-14; 2.23aβ-25.219 Therefore Ex 1.6, 8-12, 15–2.23aα is not P. Previous generations of critical biblical scholars have been occupied with parsing the
210 Kenton L. Sparks (―Genre Criticism‖ in Methods for Exodus [ed. T.B. Dozeman], 81-82) calls Ex 1.1-5 a ―segmented genealogy‖ to where it is more of a ―tribal list.‖ Coats (Exodus 1-18, 23) terms it a ―NAME LIST‖ over against genealogy. Cf. Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift (FAT, 56; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 30. 211 These are the cases there the two words occur together. There are other (P) occurrences of just hrp (Gen 17.6) and only hbr (Gen 7.17, 18; 17.2). 212 See Koch, ―P-Kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung,‖ VT 37/4 (1987): 458; Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994), 166-167. 213 Schmid, ―The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid), 34. 214 ―Such treatment of slaves is a violation of the Jubilee law…according to the P writer, the forced labor is not only oppressive, it is illegal‖ (Dozeman, Exodus, 72). 215 Moreover, this verb is etymologically imbedded into the name/identity of the people—Hebrew (yrb(, ―labourers‖ or ―worshippers‖)—thus serving as a naming aetiology. 216 Rendtorff, ――L‘histoire biblique des origines (Gen 1-11) dans le contexte de la rédaction «sacerdotale » du Pentateuque‖ in Le Pentateuque en Question (eds. A. de Pury, T. Römer, and S. Amsler; trans. Samuel Amsler), 91. 217 Cf. Propp, ――The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?,‖ VT 46/4 (1996): 467-468, 470-471, 476. 218 Slight variation from the above is exhibited only in the debate as to whether v.7 in its entirety or only partially is P, and similarly, how to numerically cite v.23 to indicate starting at the word(s) wxn)yw. 219 So N. Lohfink, Studien zum Pentateuch (SBAB, 4; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988), 213- 253 (222 n.29); Carr, Reading the Fractures, 121, 127; Contra Propp (Exodus 1-18, 125-127) who sees 1.7, 13- 14 as P, yet 1.1-5a as R (126); cf. idem, ―Priestly Source,‖ 463, 477 (where he includes v.7 as R). Alternatively, some lump v.6 in with P: T. Hiebert (The Yahwist‟s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel [Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2008], 167); Noth (Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 18); Elliger (―Sinn und Ursprung der preisterlichen Geschichtserzӓhlung,― ZTK 49 [1952]: 121-143); Coats (Exodus 1-18, 22 et passim). Cf. Levin, Der Jahwist, 315 n.28 (Römer, ―La construction du Pentateuque,‖ 29 n.82); Schmid, ―The So-Called Yahwist,‖ 44; J.C. Gretz, ―The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid), 83, 87; Levin (trans. Margaret Kohl), ―The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch.‖ JBL 126/2 (2007): 216. 160
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
remaining material between J and E;220 but in the face of current Pentateuchal studies this is a moot agenda. Ex 1.6,8-12, 15-22, 2.1-10, 2.11–2.23aα should simply be classified as non- P.221 With the highly discernible P material extricated from the opening chapters of Exodus, a sharper lens can be placed over the rest of the literary material. The nP portions of Ex 1-2—which is the lion‘s share of it—can be seen to display its own sense of common thematic concerns, synthetic vocabulary, similar patterns of speech and style, and overall literary cohesiveness. Indeed, both inter-pericope and intra-pericope cohesion is detected throughout the non-Priestly register.222
The beginning of the nP layer relates the death (tmyw) of Joseph and the rise (Mqyw) of another king of Egypt (1.6, 8);223 at the end of the non-Priestly stratum of Ex 1-2 there is a notice that the said same king of Egypt has died (tmyw; 2.23aα). When Joseph (PsIiwyo) dies and the new king knows Joseph (PsIiwyo) not (1.6, 8), the pharaoh dreads the possibility that the
Hebrews will become allies with other foreign people, that is, to add (PsawOnw:) to the enemies (1.10).
The hard labour (twlbs) that took place before Moses‘ birth is the same that grown
Moses witnesses himself (1.11; 2.11; cf. 5.4, 5); indeed this burden was afflicting (√hn(, piel) in method (1.11, 12). This tyrannous state gives way to other delinquencies. At one point an
Egyptian strikes (√hkn) a Hebrew, so Moses kills (√hkn) him (2.11-12). The next day when two Hebrews are fighting Moses asks why they are striking (√hkn) each other (2.13). One of 224 them asks Moses if he is going to kill (√grh) him as he killed (√grh) the Egyptian (2.14); 225 and Moses flees because Pharaoh has murderous (√grh) intentions for the latter (2.15). Despite this turmoil, the people of Israel are said to be mightier and more numerous than the people of Egypt (wnmm Mwc(w br l)r#y ynb M( hnh [1.9b]); and because of the midwives this state is reiterated and redoubled (d)m wmc(yw M(h bryw [1.20b]).
220 See Berge‘s resourceful graph in Reading Sources in a Text, 155. See recently J.S. Baden, ―From Joseph to Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1-2‖ VT 62/2 (2012): 133-158. Cf. also Van Seters, The Life of Moses, The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994). 221 Dozeman, Exodus, 61; Childs, Exodus, 2, 7, 28; Boorer, ―Source and Redaction Criticism,‖ 111- 118, esp. 111-113; Graham Davies, ―The Transition from Genesis to Exodus‖ in Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: A Festschrift to honor Professor John Emerton for his eightieth birthday (VTS, 135; eds. K.J. Dell, G. Davies, and Y. Von Koh; Leiden: Brill, 2010), 62-64. 222 For an extensive elaboration see Weimar, ―Exodus 1,1-2,10,‖ 177-208. 223 Coats, Exodus 1-18, 23. 224 Also, Moses‘ accoster labels Moses judge/ruler (r#; 2.14) which is the same term for the Egyptian taskmasters (yr#; 1.11). 225 The usage of these two verbs thrice each within a few verses demonstrates the apparent interchangeability of hkn and grh; compare twm of Ex 1.16. 161
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
226 God is good (b+yyw) to the midwives Shiphrah and Puah (1.20a); and the Levite 227 daughter sees how goodly (bw+) her son is (2.2a). It was because Shiphrah and Puah feared
God that they were blessed (Myhl)h-t) tdlymh N)rytw [1.17aα]; -t) tdlymh w)ry-yk yhyw
Myhl)h [1.21a]); however, Moses, ironically, fears man (…h#m )ryrw [2.14bα])—something to which the midwives did not succumb. Rather, they let the children/boys live (Nyyxtw 228 Mydlyh-t)), which is the verbatim confrontation from the pharaoh (1.17b, 18b). Not least of the nP pericope intra-connectedness is Pharaoh‘s modified genocide plan of throwing every boy into the river (whkyl#t hr)yh dwlyh Nbh-lk; 1.22); subsequently there is a mother who has a son (Nb) and—defiantly and yet brilliantly—sets (M#tw) him in the river shallows (r)yh tp#-l( Pwsb) in a floating craft (2.2-3). Eventually, Moses marries and has a son whom he names Gershom giving aetiological explanation (2.21-22)—himself possessing an appellative interpretation (2.10). Moses saved his wife to-be, and her sisters, from shepherds thereafter drawing water for them from the well (2.16-17 [19]), himself having been saved from Pharaoh‘s edict and drawn forth from the river waters (1.22; 2.10). Consequently, the nP pericopes of Ex 1.6,8-12, 1.15-22, and 2.1-10 are units inseparable as presented in the textus receptus;229 and Ex 2.11-23aα is a synthetic continuation of the life of Moses with harmonious syntax and motifs. It is yet to be discussed, though, how Ex 2.1-10 has attained its indispensable literary backdrop and overall context (see 2.3). 2.1.4 The Literargeschichte of the Moses Infancy Story The P stratum of Ex 1-2 (1.1-5,7, 13-14; 2.23aβ-25) is the basic layer (Grundschicht); indeed, we concur with A. de Pury that P(g) is ―der Konzeption der embryonӓren Pentateuchstruktur (Urgeschichte bis Mose-geschichte), und damit der welthistorischen Umrahmung der Geburts- und Berufungsgeschichte Israels.‖230 The nature of P‘s material here is partially indicative of genealogy and partially fulfillment report (see 2.2); Priestly literature in the
226 Concerning the names of the midwives to/of the Hebrews, cf. William F. Albright, ―Northwest- Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,‖ JAOS 74 (1954): 223. 227 Though b+ is a common word, used frequently by both P and nP, it nonetheless occurs twice in Ex 1-2, once in a verbal form and once in an adjectival or adverbial sense. See above 1.2.3.1.3. 228 The same conjugational preformatives and sufformatives of 2fp and 3fp make this a rare verbatim. 229 Coats (Exodus 1-18, 26) sees 1.8-12 and 2.1-10 as independent units, and 1.15-21 as a (nP) unit not independent but functioning as the link between the two. 230 ―Gottesname, Gottesbezeichnung und Gottesbegriff: ‟Elohim als Indiz zur Entstehungs-geschichte des Pentateuch‖ in Abschied vom Jahwisten (eds. J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte), 36; cf. Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 86-90. Rendsburg (―Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‗P‘,‖ JANES 12 [1980]) simply stresses that P is ―early‖ (76, 77, 78, 80) even ―classical‖ (75, 76). 162
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
opening of Exodus served for the non-Priestly compositor as a frame within which to supplement (again see 2.3). In regards to the nP editorial stratum, it is consistently confirmed that Ex 2.1-10 has the most textual antiquity (the original oral bud) from which the surrounding material is a product of transmission growth.231 We affirm the same. Further, it is judged that 1.6,8-12 and 1.15-22 were written essentially at the same period; perhaps all fifteen verses were transcribed in the order in which we have it now, or perhaps 1.15-22 most immediately explains the events of 2.1-10 and then 1.6,8-12 was penned as a more expansive backdrop. The Ex 2.11-23aα unit was subsequently written as, primarily, a transition piece to explain Moses‘ connection with Egypt and how the saved one becomes saviour.232 Therefore, after the P Grundschicht (1.1-5,7, 13-14; 2.23aβ-25) the remaining literary history consists of the following supplemental units (Erweiterte Einheite), in order from oldest to newest: [A] 2.1-10; [B] 2.11-23aα; [C] 1.15-22; [D] 1.6,8-12 (see further 2.3 and 2.4).233
2.2 Formen/Gattungenkritik 2.2.1 Formenkritik The undertakings of Formenkritik shall only need engaging on the non-P literary stratum, since it has previously been determined that Ex 2.1-10 is an Einheitlichkeit. Thus [1] delineating the structure of the text, [2] identifying a comparable Formen in the Hebrew Bible, [3] comparing other such analogous literature from the ancient Near Eastern context, and [4] discovering the Formengeschechte of Ex 2.1-10 shall ensue.234 2.2.1.1 The Form of nP Ex 2.1-10 (cf. 1.2.4.1) Previously the outline of the story was proffered on a thematic and action oriented basis; here, the same narrative is demarcated this time by aspects of Hebrew linguistic repetition
231 ―Generally, 2:1-10 are accepted on form critical grounds as the primary story to which 1:8-22 have been added as a secondary expansion‖ (Isbell, ―Exodus 1-2,‖ 38). So Childs, Exodus, 8-11; cf. Lewis, Sargon Legend, 264-265. 232 J. Cohen (Moses Nativity Story, 27) disclaims, ―The origins of the nativity story are shrouded in the past, and therefore any attempt to reconstruct the course of the story‘s development from its origins to its present biblical form can be nothing more than conjecture.‖ 233 Cf. J. Cohen, Moses Nativity Story, (13-)15: ―the limits of the birth story are from Exodus 1:15 to 2:10; verses 11-14 do not belong to it at all; and verses 8-10 are the result of melding the birth tradition with the slavery and proliferation tradition, after the opening of the birth story had disappeared.‖ 234 Steck (Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology (2nd ed.; SBLRBS, 39; trans. James D. Nogalski [Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998], 99) ―limit[s] form criticism to investigating those linguistic characteristics and those means of formation whose structural markers can currently ascertain meaning with sufficient clarity by the consistent context.‖ Cf. Buss, ―The Study of Forms‖ in Form Criticism (ed. J.H. Hayes), 33. 163
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
and phraseological symmetry and interplay which illuminate the contour (Formen) of the given pericope. I. Birth/Naming Report, pt.1 (2.1-2a) a. Levite married the daughter of Levi [2.1] b. She conceived and bore a son [2.2a] II. Concealment (2.2b-4) a. Mother sees child is goodly [2.2bα] b. Mother hides him for three months [2.2bβ] c. Afterward, Mother takes a papyrus [2.3aα] i. She modifies (waterproofs) it [2.3aβ] d. Child is hid in the [2.3bα] e. The is hidden in reeds of the Nile [2.3bβ] f. The baby‘s sister outposts nearby [2.4] III. Discovery (2.5-6bα) a. Princess descends to bathe [2.5aα] i. Princess‘ attendants survey riverbed [2.5aβ] b. Princess spots the [2.5bα] i. Commissions retrieval thereof [2.5bβ] c. Princess opens finding a crying boy [2.6a] d. Princess pities the recognized Hebrew boy [2.6bα] IV. Negotiation and Arrangement (2.6bβ-10a) a. Princess recognizes the boy to be Hebrew [2.6bβ] b. Sister proposes fetching a nursing Hebrew woman for the infant [2.7] c. Princess consents [2.8a] d. Sister executes plan [2.8b] e. Princess makes weaning arrangements with the infant‘s mother [2.9aα] i. Wages are included [2.9aβ] f. Mother weans the baby boy [2.9b] g. Mother returns weaned child to princess [2.10aα] h. Princess adopts the boy [2.10aβ] V. Birth/Naming Report, pt.2 (2.10b) a. Princess names the boy Moses [2.10bα] i. Giving explanatory etymology [2.10bβ]
The particular determinants by which the above categorizations are made shall now be expounded. [I, V] The first verse and a half (2.1-2a) and the last half verse (2.10b) frame the entire narrative unit, and, in a sense, is one birth/naming formulae as though pulled apart with interjecting material in the middle (see 2.1.1).235 The reason for this attestation is because another woman names the child since she has adopted him, which is the result of many precipitating events.236
235 On the significance of a form‘s beginning and ending, as well as what is contained in between, see Anthony F. Campbell, ―Form Criticism‘s Future,‖ in Changing Face (eds. M.A. Sweeny and E. Ben Zvi), 30. 236 On naming and status see H. Zlotnick-Sivan, ―Moses the Persian? Exodus 2, the ›Other‹ and Biblical ›Mnemohistory‹,‖ ZAW 116/2 (2004): 195. 164
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
That the naming aetiology follows the proper noun itself is normative form;237 however the opposite is certainly attested.238 Parents usually name their children, though occasionally God preordains the name and naming aetiology.239 In this case, however, the princess herself names the boy; albeit, the etymological aetiology is only ―loosely descriptive of an implicit action in the narrative material,‖ as B.O. Long points out.240 [II] The form of this section centres upon a conceptual chiastic structure. Initially the mother sees ()rtw) how goodly the newborn boy is (2.2bα); eventually the sister serves as a lookout (h(dl) for the baby (2.4). The mother hides (whnpctw) the infant (2.2bβ), and then is no longer able to hide (wnypch) him (2.3aα); henceforth, the mother, having made a floating vessel, sets (M#tw) the child in it and sets (M#tw) the vessel amongst the river reeds (2.3b). [III] This section of the narrative does not have distinct Formen per se, though it does counterbalance many lexical and phraseological phenomena while furthering the plot. For example, it was communicated (2.3aβ-4) that the mother placed the among the reeds
(Pwsb) of the riverbed (r)yh tp#-l(); here (2.5-6bα), the princess descends to the river
(r)yh-l(), has her company comb the shore of the river (dy-l( r)yh) for privacy, and then finds the (hbth-t)) lodged in the reeds (Pwsh Kwtb). Also, the mother and princess both act in a series of five verbs: the former saw ()rtw) how goodly the child was and hid him (whnpctw), yet later took (xqtw) the , sealed it (hrmxtw), placed (M#tw [x2]) baby and vessel in the river reed; the latter had the fetched (xl#tw), then took it (hxqtw), opened it (xtptw), looked at (wh)rtw) the baby inside and had compassion (lmxtw). [IV] In this piece of the narrative there are two structural facets which denote its form, one is dialogue and the other is commission–obedience (or command–fulfillment). The clearest structural feature is the three-word verbatim speech formulae which commences vv.8 and 9.241
(ykl) h(rp-tb hl-rm)tw 2.8
(ykylyh) h(rp-tb hl rm)tw 2.9
Further, the first word of the princess‘s actual speech, in both cases, is from the same verbal root, Klh. The remainder of these verses document the exact compliance of the princess‘s
237 See Gen 29.32; 30.24; 1 Sam 1.20; Isa 8.3; Hos 1.4, 6, 9. Gen 4.1 and 1 Ch 7.23 are analogous too, though they depart a little from the standard form. Cf. Lewis, Sargon Legend, 251. 238 E.g., Gen 29.33, 34, 35; 30.6, 8, 11, 13, 18, 20 239 E.g., Gen 21; Isa 8; Hos 1. 240 Problem of Etiological Narrative, 58. 241 The only difference is the presence of the maqqef in v.8 and the lack thereof in v.9; but this is inconsequential. 165
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
orders. The mother is told to go (ykylyh) and suckle (whqnyhw) the baby, so she takes (xqtw) the baby in order to suckle (whqyntw) him (2.9[-10a]). In the case of the sister, Pharaoh‘s daughter tells her to enact (ykl) everything that the former had previously offered, so the girl goes (Kl)h || Kltw) and calls (yt)rqw || )rqtw) a Hebrew wet-nurse (tyrb(h Nm tqnym h#)), that is, the child‘s mother (dlyh M)-t)) (2.7 || 8). This last case may appear slightly as though the princess is following the orders, or advice, of the Hebrew girl—and that indeed essentially transpires. Although from a form- critical vantage, particularly concerning speech introductory formulae, it is poignant that the princess has the first and the last word of the narrative. Previous to the girl‘s proposition, Pharaoh‘s daughter identifies the infant as Hebrew. While it is unknowable whether this identification is verbally emitted or not,242 the text nevertheless relays how it was something the princess said (rm)tw) (v.6bβ). Consequently, the princess was first to speak (rm)tw) and only then did the sister articulate (rm)tw) a proposal, to which the former assents and the latter fulfils (2. 6bβ-8). Pharaoh‘s daughter subsequently commissions the daughter of Levi, and the latter obeys (2.9-10a). Finally, the princess has the last word (rm)tw) when she names the child.243 2.2.1.2 A Corollary Form Critical nP Text: Gen 21.8-21 In the effort to critically compare the form of Ex 2.1-10 to another of its ilk, for the purpose of determining what is typical of and what is unique to the Moses‘ Infancy story, an analogous story must, of course, be identified. While this is not a common story type in the Hebrew Bible, there does appear to be one other instance, in a general sense, of a child who was unwanted and thereby experienced an abandonment of sorts. When Sarah witnessed Ishmael making sport of Isaac (Gen 21.9), this was the catalyst to have both Hagar and Ishmael expulsed from the Abrahamic clan (Gen 21.8-14).244 Before the congruity of Formen is elucidated the major inconsistencies must be recognized. There are three major differences: Ishmael is more thrust out of a family than abandoned; Ishmael is expulsed together with his mother; Ishmael is in his adolescence,
242 Coats perceives it as a ―SOLILOQUY‖ (Exodus 1-18, 26). 243 There is one more speech (rm)tw) of the princess in 2.10b, of course; albeit, this is part of the birth/ naming report resumption (I, V). 244 So Childs, ―The Birth of Moses,‖ 117-118; cf. Brenner, ―Female Social Behaviour,‖ 260-261. A. de Pury (―Gottesname, Gottesbezeichnung und Gottesbegriff: ‟Elohim als Indiz zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuch‖ in Abschied vom Jahwisten [eds. J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte], 47) maintains this text ―manifestly presupposes the priestly narrative of Gen 17.‖ 166
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
approximately seventeen years old,245 instead of in his infancy. Yet despite these disparities Gen 21.8-21 nevertheless still features as the most corollary literary form of this story type. The similarities in Formen, then, between Gen 21.8-21 (esp. vv.14-21) and Ex 2.1-10 are the following: 1. Preparations for Abandonment/Expulsion 2. Child is Situated within/beneath Vegetation 3. A Female is Positioned a certain Distance Away from the Child 4. Intervention for the Child by an Other 5. Boy Grows up (Safely)
The above-listed components will subsequently be analyzed in a juxtapositional fashion. [1] Moses‘ mother‘s preparations for the separation of her child included taking a papyrus and covering it with bitumen and pitch (Ex 2.3a). The preparations Abraham undertook for the separation of his boy included sending him and his mother off with food and water (Gen 21.14). [2] In each instance, when the mother is to depart from the child, the boy is situated in close proximity to vegetation. Jochebed set (M#tw) the child (dlyh-t)) among (-b) reeds (Ex
2.3b); Hagar cast (Kl#tw) the child (dlyh-t)) underneath (txt) a bush (Gen 21.15b).
[3] As Moses‘ sister stations herself at a distance (qxrm) from the infant in order to know ((dy) what will happen to him (Ex 2.4), so inversely Hagar also distanced (qxrh
[t#q ywx+mk]) herself from the boy for she does not want to see (h)r) what will happen to him (Gen 21.16). Striking also is the issue of water in both these stories. On the one hand,
Hagar knows that the lack of water (Mym) will cause the death of both her and Ishmael (Gen 21.15; cf. vv.14, 19); on the other hand, Moses is buoyantly hovering over what is supposed to be the means/agency of his death—water (Mym) (Ex 2.10; cf. 1.22). [4] In each story the endangered, abandoned/expulsed child experiences saving intervention—and from the most inconceivable agents too. With Moses it would seem extremely unlikely that the very daughter of the monarch who dictated the death of Hebrew infant males would intervene to save one such baby (Ex 2.5b-10). In Ishmael‘s case an angel of the Lord communicates words of hope and then God opens Hagar‘s eyes to see a well of water, which in turn sustained their lives (Gen 21.17-19).
245 Ishmael is born to Abram when he was eighty-six (86) years old (Gen 16.15-16). Next, Abram was ninty-nine (99) when God foretold a son would be borne to him through Sarai, promising that it would happen in one year‘s time; henceforth, God instituted the covenant sign of circumcision and Abraham and Ishmael, thirteen (13) years old, were circumcised together that day (Gen 17.1, 21-27). And indeed one year later, when Abra(ha)m was one-hundred (100) years old, Isaac was born to him (Gen 21.1-7), making Ishmael fourteen (14) years old. Next in the narrative is a feast held because Isaac is ―weaned‖ (Gen 21.8), which makes Ishmael about three (3) years older (see 1.2.3.5.2); thus he is seventeen (17) years old at the time of his expulsion. 167
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
It appears, further, that in each instance the catalyst of intervention is the child‘s outcry. Pharaoh‘s daughter opened (xtptw) the to find a crying (hkb) Moses and intervened (Ex 2.6a); Ishmael‘s voice (lwq) was heard and ultimately Hagar‘s eyes were opened (xqpyw) to see water (Gen 21.17, 19). Moses is taken out of water with the result of life preservation; Ishmael is given water for the purpose of preserving life. [5] The conclusion to both stories comprises the respective child growing up to maturity in safety. Just as Ishmael grew up (ldg) in the desert (rbdm) of Paran and later took an Egyptian wife (Myrcm Cr)m h#)) (Gen 21.20-21), so similarly Moses grew up (ldg) in
Egypt and later took a wife (h#ml wtb hrpc-t) Ntyw) in the desert (rbdm) of Midian (2.10, 21b; 3.1). One of the most striking features of the two stories analyzed is the way in which the protagonist is identified, i.e. the pronouns ascribed to each male. Despite, for example, Ishmael being approximately seventeen years of age he is more often referred to as a child 2, 3x2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16 12, 17x2, 18, 19, 20 (dly = Gen 21. ) instead of a youth (r(n = Gen 21. ). One would expect a higher usage of r(n for the seventeen year old. Incidentally, infant Moses is 2, 3, 6x2, 7, 8, 9x2, 10 nearly always called a child (dly = Ex 2. ), with one occurrence of boy (r(n = Ex 2.6). Therefore, it is evident that the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael serves as the most analogous story in form-critical terms. The aqedah, for example, is more tenuous in Formen;246 even though the aqedah likewise features an endangered youth, he is neither abandoned nor exposed per se. Similarly, Israel as exposed infant in Ezek 16 is, though provocative, not configured form-critically after the typical exposure story, however thematic, taking rather many deviations from the pattern. (One story outside of the scope of the TANAKH that is strongly congruous in Formen to Ex 2.1-10 is the death threat upon infant Jesus in the NT canon.247) Thus, Gen 21.14-21 is the strongest parallel in the Hebrew Bible to Ex 2.1-10. An alternative nP narrative whereby similar Formen is attested, though in a singular respect, is Gen 2-3*. This textual body contains episodes and compounded episodes entailing
Adam and his woman/wife (h#)). At issue here is how Adam‘s h#) is created in Gen 2.21-
246 Cf. Houtman, Exodus vol.1, 291; Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993). 247 See further Childs, Exodus, 42-46; Dozeman, Exodus, 85-86; Brenner, ―Female Social Behaviour,‖ 269-271; J. Cohen, Moses Nativity Story, 157-171; M. Milman, ―Noah and His Family,‖ The Monist 29/2 (1919): 259-292. 168
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
23 yet she is not named until 3.20—indeed, the female is called by the adverbial label woman/wife sixteen times until she is bestowed a proper name, Eve.248 Like the Moses Infancy Story, Gen 2-3* contain several episodes and scenes between the beginning of life and when the person in question is named. The episodes sandwiched in Genesis are the following: I. Creation of Woman (2.21-25) a. Creation of Woman from Man [2.21-22] b. Woman as Man‘s Mate [2.23] i. Aetiology for Human Union [2.24] ii. Humans naked, no shame [2.25] II. The Temptation and Fall of Humans (3.1-19) a. Serpent‘s Temptation of Humans [3.1-7] i. Serpent‘s Lie [3.1-5] ii. Human‘s Fall [3.6-7] b. God‘s Confrontation and Exposure [3.8-13] c. God‘s Threefold Cursing [3.14-19] i. Satan [3.14-15] ii. Woman [3.16] iii. Man [3.17-19] III. Naming of Woman (3.20) a. Name and Aetiology [3.20]
The Gen 3 narrative goes on to relay the exile from Eden (3.21-24), though the above outline meets the present purpose. The report of Eve‘s naming and aetiology—―because she was the mother of all living‖ (3.20b)—is most certainly a counterpart to the issue of childbearing comprised in her curse; albeit, the writer did not want to break the flow of the threefold cursing so opted to tack the former datum at the end of said subunit. Thus, we find a much delayed etymological aetiology regarding the woman who is named Eve. Like Moses, Eve is referred to by familial relationship (wife/woman || child, boy, youth) of the life source (Adam || Jochebed), yet they only receive a given name after the end of several events that are precipitators for the derivation of the name. 2.2.1.3 The Form of the Moses Infancy Story vis-à-vis ANE Exposed Infant Stories Though there are a plethora of stories postulated to purport to the Exposed Infant Formen,249 only five fall within our scope: the Legend of Sargon,250 Cyrus the Mede by Herodotus,251
248 22, 23, 24, 25 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13x2, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21 h#): Gen 2. ; 3. . 249 Redford in his article ―The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child (cf. Ex. ii 1-10),‖ Numen 14/3 (1967) lists 32 parallel stories (225); Lewis enumerates 72 in his monograph Sargon Legend (152-195), though 32 of these instances involved exposing by means of a box, basket, or chest (246). See also Gaster, Myth, Legends, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol.1 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1981), 224-229. 250 The translation of The Legend of Sargon is E.A. Speiser‘s from ANET, 119; cf. Lewis, Sargon Legend, 24-29. See also Meik Gerhards, Die Aussetzungeschichte des Mose: Literar- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Schlüsseltext des nichtpriesterlichen Tetrateuch (WMANT, 109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 211-240. 251 The translated text comes from Herodotus: Books I-II (trans. A.D. Godley; LCL, 117; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996). 169
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Sophocles‘ Oedipus,252 Iamus in Pindar‘s Olympian Ode VI,253 and Euripedes‘ Ion.254 These are selected for Formen analysis primarily because of the general proximity of their compositional origin, viz. time period. Each Greek story dates to the fifth century BCE.255 Sargon has a terminus ad quem of 627 BCE.256 And Ex 2 was composed somewhere betwixt these (see 2.2.2.2 below). These aforementioned traditions are thematically uniform in six major ways; these parallels are: 1. A male is Born (in/to precarious circumstances/people) 2. Infant is Abandoned (by his mother or king) 3. Infant is Exposed in a Basket/Box on a River/Sea 4. Infant is Found/Saved 5. Infant is effectively Adopted by his Rescuer 6. Infant grows up to be a Hero
These points of similarity shall now be expounded in detail, citing the source material to demonstrate the parallelism. [1] Naturally, a male child must be born to initiate this type of story; what is exceptional, however, are the extremely precarious conditions into which he is born—often there is a looming death threat to the baby. Moses ―The woman conceived and bore a son; and when she saw that he was a goodly child, she hid him three months. And when she could hide him no longer‖ (Ex 2.2-3a) Sargon ―My mother was a high priestess, my father I knew not. …My mother, the high priestess, conceived me, in secret she bore me.‖ (1.2, 5) Cyrus ―Astyages had a daughter, whom he called Mandane…in the first year of Mandane‘s marriage to Cambyses Astyages saw a second vision…he sent to the Persians for his daughter, then near her time, and when she came kept her guarded, desiring to kill whatever child she might bear: for the interpreters declared that the meaning of his dream was that his daughter‘s offspring should rule in his place.‖ (I.107-108) Oedipus Oedipus‘ mother abandoned him because of an omen which is conveyed by the former as follows: ―That I should mate with mine own mother, and shed With my own hands the blood of my own sire.‖ (1.995-996)257 Iamus ―Aepytus…with keen resolve quelling in his heart his wrath unutterable, to inquire of the oracle concerning this dire disaster. Meanwhile, she [Euadnê] laid down her crimson zone and her silver pitcher, and ‘neath the blue drake was about to bear a boy inspired of heaven…and from her womb, and amid sweet sorrow, forthwith came Iamus to the light of day‖ (VI.36, 37-44a). Ion Creusa is raped by Phoebus in a cave (10); after birthing the bastard she [Hermes:] ―brought the babe Unto the selfsame cave wherein the God Had humbled her, and left it there to die…‖ (16b-19; cf.1473-1500)
252 Sophocles, vol.1: Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone (trans. F. Storr; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946). 253 The Odes of Pindar, including The Principle Fragments (trans. by John Sandys; LCL. New York: G.P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1927). 254 Euripides, vol.4: Ion Hippolytus, Medea, Alestis (trans. T.E. Page; LCL; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946). 255 Cf. e.g., Lewis, Sargon Legend, 157-160. 256 So Lewis, Sargon Legend, 273. 257 And this is, of course, fulfilled; cf. 1.1355, 1507-1509. 170
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Most Greek sources feature an omen or prophecy that forecasts how the child will be critically endangered; in the Akkadian and Hebrew stories this feature is absent258 and the boy is rather the object of destruction (cf. Ex 1.22). Because the circumstances of birth are perilous, there is an element of secrecy in the process of childbirth and following. [2] The child is eventually abandoned/exposed by its primary caregiver, typically his mother and/or father. Moses ―…she took for him a basket made of bulrushes, and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; and she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river‘s brink‖ (Ex 2.3). Sargon ―She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose not (over) me‖ (1.6-7). Cyrus ―He gave his wife the child whom he had brought to kill him, and his own dead child he put into the chest wherein he carried the other…‖ (I.113) Oedipus Queen Jocasta, because of the ominous omen, surrendered her son to their royal herdsman in order to abandon him; however, the herdsman in turn passed the child onto the messenger (1.1162-1181).259 Iamus ―And she [Euadnê], though sore distressed, was fain to leave him there upon the ground‖ (VI.44b-45a). Ion [Old Servant:] ―Who cast him forth?‖ [Creusa:] ―Even I.‖ [Old Servant:] ―Nor any knew the exposing of the child?‖ [Creusa:] ―None‖ (954a, 955a, 956, 967a; cf. 10-19)
Whereas it is said in the Legend of Sargon that the father is not known by the protagonist, Moses‘ father is also nearly as elusive—he is merely referenced in Ex 2.1. Additionally, the Levite tribe will later become in Exodus (chs.32, 38) the priestly clan; this parallels Sargon‘s priestess (ēntu) mother.260 With Cyrus and Oedipus there are a few hands through which the baby passes both to the ends of abandoning and saving the child. More specifically, in the Cyrus tradition the babe is exposed (e0kqei=nai / e0kkei/menon; I.112, et passim); and in a retelling of Moses‘ life he is said to have been exposed (e0kteqe/ntov; Acts 7.21). Ion too is exposed (e1kqesin; 956).261 Iamus, alternatively, is left (lei=pe; VI.45a) and even hidden (ke/krupto; cf. Ex 2.3).
258 Some have suggested that a prophecy has part of the original Formen of the Moses Infancy Story, similar to the event surrounding Jesus in the NT (Mt 1-2; Lk 1); e.g., Hugo Gressmann, Mose und seine Zeit: ein kommentar zu den Mose-sagen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913). 259 The play‘s plot is somewhat contradictory. The Herdsman steadfastly maintains he conferred the infant to the (Corinthian) Messenger (1.1156-1157, 1177); but the Messenger asserts both that the Herdsman gave him the child (1040-1044) and that he found the child (1.1026, 1028-1030). 260 The ―ēntu priestesses‖ were ―prohibited from bearing children‖ in order ―to live chastely‖ (Lewis, Sargon Legend, 38); correspondingly, Jochebed was essentially prohibited from bearing children, lest she gambled for a girl (Ex 1.22). 261 Ark/chest as a1ggoj (1337, 1398, 1412) and a0nti/prg(oj) (1338, 1380, [1391]). Cf. also line 32, 37, 39, 273. 171
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
[3] A predominant method of exposure/abandonment is the dual approach of setting the boy in some sort of receptacle (box/chest or basket) and subsequently committing it to the waters; variation to this template, of course, exists. Moses ―…she took for him a basket made of bulrushes, and daubed it with bitumen and pitch; she put the child in it and placed it among the reeds at the river‘s brink.‖ (Ex 2.3). Sargon ―She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose not (over) me‖ (1.6-7). Cyrus ―…and laid it [the chest] out in the most desolate part of the mountains.‖ (I.113) Oedipus -262 Iamus Iamus ―had been hidden amid the rushes and in the boundless drake…‖ (VI.54). Ion [Hermes:] ―…and left it there to die In the fair-rounded hollow of an ark‖ (18b-19)
Moses and Sargon are placed in a basket of (bul)rushes. Iamus was lodged among the stuff with which baskets were made: rushes (sxoi/nw|; cf. LXX Mic 6.5; Joel 4.18). The receptacle in which Cyrus and Ion were set was a chest (a1ggoj;263 cf. LXX Deut 23.26; 1 Kgs 17.10; Amos 8.1, 2; Jer 19.11; Ezek 4.9). The setting where Sargon was abandoned is a city called ―Azupiranu, which is on the banks of the Euphrates‖ River, specifically (ANET 119). In Exodus the setting is largely at the banks of the Nile River (2.3, 5). Interestingly, r)y, a word strictly meaning ―river,‖ but is often translated ―Nile,‖ is also used to refer to the Tigris in Dan 12.5-7, the twin river of the Euphrates. Thus, waters are the locale upon which these two infants are exposed (cf. Iamus among reeds and drakes); the other traditions viewed have loci of cave and mountain. [4] The exposed/abandoned infant is found and rescued by someone, usually quite humble or quite aristocratic status—but always someone unexpected.264 Moses Now the daughter of Pharaoh came down to bathe at the river, and her maidens walked beside the river; she saw the basket among the reeds and sent her maid to fetch it. When she opened it she saw the child; and lo, the babe was crying. She took pity on him and said, ‗This is one of the Hebrews‘ children.‘ ( Ex 2.5-6) Sargon ―The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his e[w]er.‖ (1.8-9) Cyrus ―…the cowherd uncovered it and showed it. But when the woman saw how fine and fair the child was, she fell a-weeping and laid hold of the man‘s knees and entreated him by no means to expose him.‖ (I.112)
262 Though infant Oedipus is not abandoned in a receptacle, it is in the near context of him discovering his own abandonment wherein the protagonist figuratively refers to his ―cradle [sparga/nwn]‖ (1.1035)! 263 In Ion, the ark/chest is a1ggoj (1337, 1398, 1412) and a0nti/prg(oj) (1338, 1380, [1391]). Cf. also line 32, 37, 39, 273. 264 Rank, Myth of the Birth of the Hero and Other Writings (New York: Vintage Books, 1964), 65: ―As a rule, he is surrendered to the water, in a box. He is then saved by animals, or by lowly people (shepherd), and is suckled by a female animal or by an humble woman.‖ 172
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Oedipus [Messenger:] ―I found thee in Cithaeron‘s wooden glens. …My business was to tend the mountain flocks.‖ [Oedipus:] ―A vagrant shepherd journeying for hire?‖ [Messenger:] ―True, but thy saviour in that hour, my son.‖ (1.1026, 1028-1030)265 Iamus ―…with its dainty form steeped in the golden and the deep-purple light of pansies; therefore it was that his mother declared that he should be called for all time by undying name of Iamus.‖ (VI.55-57a)266 Ion [Hermes:] ―A priestess…casting eyes upon the wordless babe, Marvelled that any Delphian maid should dare Into the God‘s house fling her child of shame…So took she him…‖ (42-45, 49; cf. 964-965)
Ion, just as Moses, is strategically positioned before a princess‘s path, the latter in each case being the rescuer. ―In Sargon, the person who abandoned the child had more lofty status than the person who found him; in Scriptures it is the other way around,‖ muses J. Cohen.267 Shepherds save both Cyrus and Oedipus. Also, it is interesting to note the cowherd woman perceived in Cyrus akin qualities (mega te kai\ eu0eide\j e0o/n) as Jochebed did Moses (a0stei=oj; LXX Ex 2.2). In the case of Iamus, his mother reclaims him. [5] Next, the infant is effectively adopted and raised by his rescuer(s), or someone whom the rescuer(s) elects. Moses And Pharaoh‘s daughter said to her, ‗Take this child away, and nurse him for me, and I will give you your wages.‘ So the woman took the child and nursed him. And the child grew, and she brought him to Pharaoh‘s daughter, and he became her son; and she named him Moses, for she said, ‗Because I drew him out of the water.‘ (Ex 2.9-10) Sargon ―Akki, the drawer of water, [took me] as his son (and) reared me.‖ (1.10) Cyrus ―and the cowherd‘s wife took and reared the boy who was afterwards named Cyrus; but she gave him not that but some other name.‖ (I.110) Oedipus The rescuer of Oedipus (Messenger) transfers the infant to the care of Polybus who raised the child. (cf. 1014-1024) Iamus ―…two grey-eyed serpents tended the babe with the bane, the harmless bane, of the honey-bees.‖ (VI.45b-47a) Ion [Pythia:] ―For the God‘s own sake I nursed thee, boy…Which his unspoken will then made me take And guard. Why thus he willed I cannot tell.‖ (1357b-1360; cf. 49-56)
Nursing and weaning concerns are present and often problematic. Naming episodes are sometimes described as well. [6] Through the course of time the child grows and becomes no ordinary man; rather, extraordinarily significant achievements are made by the once foundling. The protagonist becomes national leader, whether formal monarch or otherwise.
265 The Corinthian messenger who speaks here later conveys that another shepherd, who ―tended sheep‖ in ―Cithaeron and the neighbouring alps‖ (1.1125, 1127), actually found the infant and directly entrusted the foundling to the messenger (see 1.1040-1044, 1121-1127). Interesting, when Oedipus is in process of discovering his true identity from a messenger his predilection guides him to ask if he is a ―foundling [tuxw/n (or tekw/n)]‖, which he indeed was (1.1025). 266 The translator notes, ―Lit. ‗this undying name,‘ means Iamus…‖ (Sandys, Pindar, 61 n.2). 267 J. Cohen, Moses Nativity Story, 19; cf. Lewis, Sargon Legend, 41-42. 173
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Moses [See Ex 3-34ff. for Moses‘ liberation and leadership of the Israelites.] Sargon ―And for four and […] years I exercised kingship.‖ (1.13[-21]) Cyrus [See I.123-130 for an account of Cyrus‘ usurpation of the Mede throne.] Oedipus [Oedipus becomes prince of Corinth and then king of Thebes.] Iamus ―…the babe was begotton (sic) of Pheobus, and was destined to be, for men on earth, a prophet for beyond all mortals, and his race would never fail‖ (VI. 49-51) Ion [Ion becomes king of the Aegialeans and of Athens.]
Moses and Iamus become prophets; Sargon, Cyrus, Oedipus, and Ion become kings. H. Zlotnick-Sivan poignantly observes biblical parallels between Cyrus and Moses: whereas 268 Cyrus is depicted as ruler (h(r; Isa. 44.28) and messiah (xy#m; Isa 45.1), Moses is similarly a shepherd (h(r; Ex 3.1) and saviour (√h#y; Ex 2.17b). 2.2.1.4 The Formengeschichte of the Moses Infancy Story (cf. 1.2.3.2 & 2.1.2) The Formengeschichte of the Moses Infancy Story is the progression from a generic, free- floating folktale (Mӓrchen) about a legendary figure who rises from obscurity to becoming a warrior, saviour, and king of/for the people to the appropriation of the aforesaid into the Hebrew tradition thus customization it a legend (Legende) about Moses (see 2.2.2.1 below). The various elements of his evolution in form (Formengeschichte) shall be plotted out with the presupposition that congruous (i.e. unaltered, from the biblical vantage) data between Ex 2.1-10 and other analogous stories are the most antiquated. The most congruous elements with comparable Formen comprise the Concealment (II) and Discovery (III) sections of the story (see the story‘s form in 2.2.2.1.1 for Roman numeral enumerations). Within this data there are the crucial components of the exposure (1) of the baby boy (2) by the mother (3); the former nestled in a basket (4) set on the waters (5); the rescuer at the waters (6) who then takes on the responsibility of, or makes such arrangements for, the child‘s upbringing (7). The next development was to specifically Hebraize the story by implementing the Birth/Naming Report (I, V). The first part of the report (I–conception/birth) provides background information of the biological mother; and the second part (V–naming/aetiology) seeks to broaden portrayal of the adoptive mother. With this literary and form growth, context/setting is brought into focus and other details are clarified: (1) the mother is Hebrew;269 (2) since there is a Hebrew–Egyptian maternal interplay these two people groups are concluded to cohabitate; (3) the broader biblical tradition illuminates the context is the Hebrew enslavement in Egypt; (4) the reason for hiding the baby is made intelligible; (5) the
268 ―Moses the Persian?,‖ 191, 193 (196). 269 It was already determined in II and III that the adopter is Egyptian; the counterpart information, however, was lacking which thereby provides additional context and thus motives and compulsions. 174
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
motive for abandonment is learned (cf. Ex 1.22); (6) the impulse to conceal the basket in the reeds is made known; (7) the river is thus the Nile. Up to this point we essentially have a completed story (I-III, V). Although, more detail is craved by the audiences, for the characters are flat; hence the Negotiation and Arrangement (IV) section is added.270 In this particular piece of Formen unique to Exodus the princess speaks much more (1), a new character, the baby‘s sister, appears, dialoguing with the princess (2); and irony becomes more pointed when the biological mother becomes the princess‘ wet-nurse (3) who presumably gets paid to wean the baby (4).271 Having been reunited with her son (5), the mother is again separated from him (6) when he is adopted by the one who drew him from water (7). This supplement also brings a Hebraic flavour, rendering the full form of Ex 2.1-10 the Hebrews‘ own Foundling legend. Though we have outlined three stages of form growth/history, this does not imply that there are long time gaps between each stage.272 Between national oral tradition and analogous foreign story Formen, Ex 2.1-10 took pre-literary shape over an extended period. But the final form of nP‘s Ex 2.1-10 would have been accomplished in a short time, literarily speaking. 2.2.2 Gattungenkritik In Gattungenkritik the following will be determined: [1] the Gattung (or genre) of the Moses Infancy Story by comparing similarly analysed structures; [2] the Sitz im Leben of the story; [3] the function and intention of the Moses Infancy Story; [4] the Gattungsgeschichte of Ex 2.1-10. 2.2.2.1 The Gattung of the Moses Infancy Story (cf. 1.2.3.5) The type (genre) of prose contained in Ex 2.1-10 has been categorized a few different ways; scholarly opinion ranges from Mӓrchen(motif),273 to saga (Sage),274 to legend (Legende).275
270 Cf. Lewis, Sargon Legend, 264. 271 Elias Auerbach, Moses (trans. Robert A. Barclay and Israel O. Lehman; Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1975), 17: ―The motif…that the hero-child is actually suckled by its own mother, is a piece of genuine legend.‖ 272 Cf. J. Cohen (Moses Nativity Story, 155) who hold ―the story of Moses was comprised of two independent nativity story archetypes,‖ i.e. the genocide and ark motifs, ―which through their reciprocal influence over many generations merged into a single continuous story.‖ 273 Childs, ―The Birth of Moses,‖ 117; idem, Book of Exodus, 10; Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (trans. Peter R. Ackroyd; New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1965), 42; James Plastaras, Creation and Covenant (Milwaukee, Wisc.: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968), 103 274 Zlotnick-Sivan, ―Moses the Persian?,‖ 203; Werner H. Schmidt, Old Testament Introduction (2nd ed.; trans. Matthew J. O‘Connell; New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 66-67. 275 J. Cohen, Moses Nativity Story, 52: ―The biblical narrative is clearly legend and, as such, should not be challenged on the grounds of being unrealistic.‖ Sparks, ―Genre Criticism,‖ 84: ―it is likely that the birth story of Moses was modelled after Sargon‘s birth legend at some point during or after Sargon II‘s reign.‖ Cf. also J. Philip Hyatt, Exodus (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 62. 175
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
―The primary distinction between a Mӓrchen and a saga‖ J.A. Wilcoxen clarifies, ―is that the first is a free-floating story not connected to any particular person, place, or time, while saga is attached to actual persons, places, or situations.‖276 On the other hand, J.J. Scullion explicates, ―Legende or legend is a story about a holy person or a collection of stories about a holy person or persons, put into writing to be read at certain times for the edification of a community or to be read privately to inspire imitation.‖277 From the above proffered descriptions of varying genres, the form/contents of Ex 2.1- 10 are not applied to just anybody in the Hebrew Bible nor to more than one person; thus, it is a story form affixed to a particular personage (Moses), place (along the waters of the Nile), and situation (during the enslavement of the Hebrews in Egypt). So Ex 2.1-10 would appear to favour saga over Mӓrchen; yet what about legend? For the birth and upbringing of such an acclaimed national hero to be so paradoxical is indeed legendary. Furthermore, the seriatim of birth, exposure, rescue, and becoming national leader is just the beginning of a large collection of excursuses contributing to the legendary figure of Moses (Ex 2–Deut 33).278 It seems the most appropriate categorical genre of Ex 2.1-10 consequently is legend (Legende).279 Still more specific than the general label of legend, Ex 2.1-10 has an abandonment/ exposure subtype motif. These words (abandoned and exposed) usually taken synonymously actually have quite nuanced differences, however. It should be distinguished that infant
Moses is exposed—yet not abandoned. M. Corgan has argued that Kl# is the technical term x2 for abandonment (Ex 1.22); so since the infant‘s mother My# her child out (2.3 ) ―our author not merely tempered, but virtually eliminated the element of exposure.‖280 But it is an overstatement to claim that Moses was not even exposed—naturally he was.281 He was set out of his parent‘s house and direct maternal care—i.e. exposed—though not cast out or
276 ―Narrative,‖ 71. He states further, ―in the analysis of sagas, if a motif is encountered (e.g., the mode of Moses‘ deliverance at his birth, Ex 2:1-10) that also appears in the literature of other peoples (e.g., the Legend of Sargon, ANET, 119), it must be taken as typical and assigned no historical value‖ (73). 277 ―Mӓrchen, Sage, Legende,‖ 334. He continues, ―It very often has miraculous elements which testify to the person‘s holiness and give assurance that God is present, though the miracle is not necessary‖ (334-335). Hals (―Legend,‖ 172-173) registers the caveat, ―A focus on sacred persons, places, times or institutions may well be characteristic of many legends, but it is not distinctively or exclusively so.‖ 278 Moses‘ legacy stretches through the oration of the Law (Deut*) at the threshold of the Promised Land—the same Law that was to be reread for every subsequent generation. Cf. again Scullion ―Mӓrchen, Sage, Legende,‖ 334. 279 The hairline difference between Sage and Legende has been well-rehearsed. 280 Morton Cogan, ―A Technical Term for Exposure‖ JNES 27/2 (1968): 134. 281 So C. Cohen, ―Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies.‖ JANESCU 4 (1972): 47, 49. 176
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
discarded—i.e. abandoned.282 Therefore, abandonment and exposure are not identical actions. In sum, the particular genre (Gattung) of Ex 2.1-10 is infant exposure legend.283 2.2.2.2 The Sitz im Leben of the Moses Infancy Story (cf. 1.2.6) In attempts to locate the origin of the writing of Ex 2.1-10 and the circumstances from which it was derived, certain informant impulsions of the text indicating its milieu, usually manifested by the affinity to and/or dependency of another text, must be identified. R. Albertz has enumerated several salient parallels between the narratives of infant Moses and Jeroboam (I) of 1 Kings 11-12. These include the following: like Jeroboam, Moses too is depicted as a man from royal circles who shows solidarity with his hard-pressed countrymen and ventures to rebel by striking an Egyptian overseer (Ex. 2.11-15; cf. I Kings 11.26-28). Both times the attempted revolt fails; like Jeroboam, Moses has to flee abroad to escape the punishment of the king (Ex. 2.15; cf. I Kings 11.40). Both return to their fellow-countrymen only after the death of the king (Ex. 2.23aα + 4.19, 20a; cf. I Kings 11.40; 12.2cj, 20). In both cases there are negotiations with the king‘s successor to ease the burden, but these end with a heightening of the demands (Ex. 5.3-19; I Kings 12.3b-15) which, remarkably, both Moses and Jeroboam tend to influence more in the background. Finally, both times the liberation from forced labour takes place in a comparable way by departure from the sphere of power of the oppressive potentate (Ex. 14.5a; I Kings 12.16, 19). 284 Albertz then concludes how ―it is highly probable that the battle against Solomon‘s forced labour [sm; 1 Kgs 5.27-28; 9.15, 21] by Jeroboam and the northern tribes was fought with an appeal to the liberation of their forefathers from Egyptian forced labour [sm; Ex 1.11]‖; as a result, this ―parallel gave the old Exodus tradition direct social relevance and provided the rebels with the religious motivation and legitimation they needed against the house of
282 Closer to the point Joseph Fleishman (―Did a Child‘s Legal Status in Biblical Israel Depend upon his being Acknowledged?,‖ ZAW 121/3 [2009]: 367) asserts, Moses ―was not abandoned, but was hidden by his mother and sister so he should not be found by the Egyptians.‖ 283 The tension between such blatant referencing of ANE material yet obvious meddling of the standard form for the goal of a uniquely national legend is intriguing. See Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 30; John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller, eds., Israelite and Judean History, 192-193; Childs, Exodus, 12; Zlotnick-Sivan, ―Moses the Persian?,‖ 199; Colette Briffard, ―Moïse versus Sargon,‖ VT 60/4 (2010): 479-482; Emmanuel Cosquin, Le Lait de la Mère et Le Coffre Flottant (Paris: Bureau de la Revue, 1908), 41-45. 284 Rainer Albertz, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol 1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy (trans. John Bowden; OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 141-142. Contra Christoph Berner, ―The Egyptian Bondage and Solomon‘s Forced Labor: Literary Connections Between Exodus 1-15 and 1 Kings 1-12?‖ in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings (SBLAIIL, 8; eds. T.B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2011), 211-240, esp. 238-240. Cf. 1 Reigns/Kingdoms 12.24a-z. 177
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
David‘s claims to rule.‖285 Indeed, this proposal seems to be the best case for the textual influence of Ex 2*.286 The narrative of 1 Kgs 11-12*, which forms part of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), is generally accepted to be pre-exilic;287 more specifically, the date of DtrH‘s composition (or at least the first compositional layer thereof) is held during the reign of Josiah, after his reform (622-621 BCE).288 By virtue of the revolutionary events which transpired in Jerusalem (and throughout Judah) the capital city is the most natural locative setting for the DtrH perspective.289 Accordingly, if the Deuteronomistic tradent(s) who wrote 1 Kgs 11-12* did so during the last two decades of the seventh century BCE in Jerusalem, then the non-Priestly editor who, influenced by its literature, composited Ex 2* was likely residing near Jerusalem at approximately the same timeframe.290 In ascertaining a more precise compositional setting and dating of Ex 2* it must be kept in mind that upon his revolting succession Jeroboam291 promptly established two houses of worship in his newly formed kingdom, Dan in the north and Bethel in the south. Both religious epicentres, moreover, had Levite legacy. ―Dan was a sanctuary dating back to the period of the Judges, and was still served by the descendants of Moses [Jdg 18.30]; as a place
285 History, 142. Schmid (Genesis and the Moses Story, 148) believes the ―Moses/Exodus story…appears to be a transmission of the Northern Kingdom‖ whereas ―the ancestor story is…at home in Southern, Judean territory.‖ 286 Scholars consistently date Ex 2* generally to a given century yet without providing clear reasons for doing so. 287 So Steven L. McKenzie, The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History (Leiden: Brill, 1991). Contra Noth, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien; die sammelnden und bearbeiten Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament (Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957) / The Deuteronomistic History (JSOTSup, 2; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991). 288 For the first compositional layer of DtrH so dated of which 1 Kgs 11-12* is a part, see E. Eynikel, The Reform of King Josiah and the Composition of the Deuteronomistic History (OTS, 33; Leiden: Brill, 1996); Richard Nelson, ―The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case is Still Compelling,‖ JSOT 29/3 (2005): 324-327; cf. Ziony Zevit, ―Deuteronomistic Historiography in 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17 and the Reinvestiture of the Israelian Cult,‖ JSOT 32 (1985): 58. Blum and Römer believe Ex-Num as a life of Moses was complete in the 7th century BCE (Schmid, Genesis and the Moses Story, 120-121; Römer, ―Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography,‖ ZAW 109 [1997]: 1-11). Contra Davies (―Transition,‖ 78) who opts for dates ―from the ninth or the eighth century B.C.‖ Cf. Carr, ―The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections,‖ HeBAI 1/1 (2012): 14-18. 289 Cf. Thomas Römer, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction (New York: T&T Clark, 2005), 97-106, 149-152. Cf. also R.E. Clements, ―Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition,‖ VT 15/3 (1965): 300-312. 290 Schmid (Genesis and the Moses Story, 258) suggests ―the [nP] author responsible would not have been situation all that far from the Priestly milieu that dominated Jerusalem….‖ 291 Jeroboam, the first monarch of the Northern Kingdom and a lyx rwbg (1 Kgs 11.28), resembles Saul, a lyx rwbg (1 Sam 9.1) and the first monarch of the United Monarchy. 178
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
of cult, Bethel could trace its origins back to…Aaron‘s grandson [who] had there kept watch over the Ark of the Covenant (Jg 20: 28).‖292 In view of 1 Kgs 10-11 bearing formidable resemblance to Ex 1-2 and Dan and Bethel being settlements of the descendants of Moses and Aaron, respectively, the Sitz im Leben of Ex 2.1-10 comes to light. The Sitz im Leben of the Mӓrchen converted to Legende (see 2.2.1.4; 2.2.2.1) in Bethel, most probably because of its closer proximity to Jerusalem, purports to a learned and literate circle of religio-political dynamism. For the compositor to retroject Moses the legendary religio-political leader into his own Israelite (sub)legacy, a seething religio-political setting is deduced; indeed, such contexts must typically be the crucible for the appropriation of a warrior-saviour-king Mӓrchen into their national writings. Therefore, it is quite plausible that Ex 2.1-10 was literarily generated by nP in Bethel circa 620-600 BCE.293 2.2.2.3 Intention/Purpose of the Moses Infancy Story The intention or purpose of the final form of Ex 2* is to create an early life account of Moses, who is cast in the light of both Jeroboam and Sargon (I/II)294 (see below). Jeroboam and Moses are liberators, leaders, and lawgivers of the people of Israel; Jeroboam and Moses both took sanctuary in Egypt during a spell of their lives. Sargon (II) and Moses both led a conquest, of sorts, against Egypt and were victorious; Sargon (I) and Moses are both said to have had the humblest of beginnings and the noblest of careers. Therefore, nP would have had the propensity to literarily cast Moses heroically after these two figures, as well as possessing his own unique qualities—all for the purpose, is can be argued, of infusing hope into the Israelites for the future (cf. ch.2 2.2.2.3.1).295 2.2.2.4 The Gattungsgeschichte of the Moses Infancy Story T.C. Römer believes there was a proliferation of legends regarding Sargon I circulating during the age of Sargon II and applying to the same.296 If this dynamic is true, it has significant bearing upon the formulation and composition of Ex 2*. For, though previous
292 R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1961), 335. 293 Could the nP compositor of Ex 2* be the enigmatic figure in 2 Kgs 17.27-28 who settled in Bethel to teach its natives how to worship God? 294 It seems that Sargon II presented himself as the reincarnation of Sargon I, or, at least, he ascribed Sargon I‘s achievements to himself. It is possible that Sargon II had the Legend of Sargon penned ―to glorify Sargon II by showing that he was a worthy successor to Sargon of Akkad‖ (Lewis, Sargon Legend, 106); cf. Yigal Levin, ―Nimrod the mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad,‖ VT 52/3 (2002): 364-365. 295 See Gerhards‘ section entitled ―Die Aussetzungsgeschichte des Mose als exilische Hoffnungsgeschichte‖ in Die Aussetzungeschichte des Mose, 250-264. 296 Römer, ―Transformations,‖ 4. His observation, however, regard affinities between Ex 1 and the Tower of Babel. 179
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
rulers of the Neo-Assyrian Empire collided with Israel and Judah,297 it was emperor Sargon II who brought Israel/Samaria to its nadir in the form of her conquering and the exiling of her denizens.298 Sargon‘s successors advanced the Assyrian empire southward through Judah (save Jerusalem),299 into Egypt, and even to Ethiopia.300 This monumental overthrow for the Assyrians, and vicariously for the Israelites, is relatively shortly before the (re)discovery of the Book of the Law (Deut*) and Josiah‘s subsequent national-religious reformation in 622- 621 BCE, thus serving as an opportune impetus. Henceforth, it is plausible that the combination of the recently revived legends of Sargon I which swirled around Sargon II and the current defeat of Egypt by the Assyrian Empire gave rise to a birth (and rearing) legend of Moses301—the Israelites‘ first national hero, who up until this point either did not possess such an anterior legend or whose birth/early adulthood legend was heavily revised on an oral tradition level. Add to the two aforesaid transmitting influences of Ex 2* the somewhat analogous figure of Jeroboam, and again the finding of the Law (of Moses), poignant historical and theological re-interpretive dynamics must have been at work in forming the early days account of Moses (among other people and events).302 In particular, Moses‘ birth legend is cast in a congruous manner to that of the Legend of Sargon (13th-8th century BCE);303 Moses‘ early adulthood accomplishments are of similar ilk to Sargon‘s, as well as Moses‘ liberating activity resembling a paralleling semblance to (the account of) Jeroboam. Therefore the aforementioned transmission factors shaped the oral account of what we know as Ex 2* and the narrative was thence composed in the wake of Josiah‘s reformation by the nP compositor in or nearby Bethel.
297 E.g., Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BCE): 2 Kgs 15.29; 16.7, 10; 1 Chron 5.6, 26; 2 Chron 28.20; ANET, 282-284; Shalmanesser V (726-722 BCE): 2 Kgs 17.3, 4; 18.9. 298 ANET, 284-287; 2 Kgs 17*. 299 Sennacherib (704-681 BCE): ANET, 287-288; 2 Kgs 18*-19 || Isa 36-37. 300 Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE) and Ashurbanipal (668-633 BCE): ANET, 289-301. Cf. however Isa 20 which appears to associate Sargon II with the conquest of Egypt and Cush. 301 This is an argument from a mnemohistory impetus. Jan Assmann, (Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997], 9 [1-22]) defines mnemohistory as accordingly: Unlike history proper, mnemohistory is concerned not with the past as such, but only with the past as it is remembered. It surveys the story-lines of tradition, the webs of intertextuality, the diachronic continuities and discontinuities of reading the past. Mnemohistory is not the opposite of history, but rather is one of its branches or subdisciplines, such as intellectual history, social history, the history of mentalities, or the history of ideas. But it has an approach of its own in that it deliberately leaves aside the synchronic aspects of what it is investigating. It concentrates exclusively on those aspects of significance and relevance which are the product of memory—that is, of a recourse to a past—and which appear only in the light of later readings. Mnemohistory is reception theory applied to history. 302 Long (―Recent Field Studies in Oral Literature and Their Bearing on OT Criticism,‖ VT 26/2 [1976]: 193) concludes, ―Transmission…needs to be seen as a kind of ‗re-creation‘. There is normally no idea of a fixed version to be transmitted, although for various sociological and cultural reasons there might be, at least for some types of oral literature.‖ 303 This date range is proposed by Lewis, Sargon Legend, 98, 273. 180
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.3 Komposition/Redaktionskritik ―Redaction criticism undertakes a systematic assessment of what the compositional process actually achieved. It focuses on the processes, oral and written sources and the manner of their combination, with a view to understand the product, the final text in all its density and multifaceted unity.‖304 So, the agenda under Komposition/Redaktionskritik is [1] to determine the combination of small textual units into a literary whole, and the particular methods of redactional assemblage; [2] to investigate the religio-theological factors behind the redactional activity; [3] to observe the Sitz in der Literatur of Ex 2* in its wider literary complex(es). 2.3.1 The Non-Priestly Redaction of a Priestly Grundschicht We again expand our scope to Ex 1-2 in order to perform this exegetical stage, since Ex 2.1- 10 is a small self-contained unit in need of a literary setting. From P‘s base layer 1.1-5,7, 13- 14; 2.23aβ-25 nP has expanded and supplemented copiously. Three redactional techniques have been employed by the nP redactor/compositor in so doing;305 these systems include textual interweaving with resumptive repetition (1.6,8-12), textual interfusion (2.11-23aα), and direct insertions of textual units (1.15-22; 2.1-10). 2.3.1.1 Interweaving Technique with Resumptive Repetition (Wiederaufnahme) The Priestly writer, in the opening of Exodus (or the epilogue of Genesis306), has listed the tribes (1.1-5) and has annotated the proliferation of the Israelites (1.7); thence a terse description is made regarding the Israelites‘ enslavement (1.13-14). The (post)non-Priestly compositor/redactor desiring to elaborate a few details about the transition from favour to bondage interjects our 1.6,8-12, and nP does so by interweaving the beginning of this material with the penultimate Priestly information. The tactic of literary interweaving is
304 Stone, ―Redaction Criticism: Whence, Whither, and Why? Or Going Beyond Source and Form Criticism Without Leaving Them Behind,‖ LTQ 27/4 (1992): 112. ―It deals with the manner in which these layers grow together, their relationships and their changes, and the manner in which they come to be situated in their current literary context‖ (Steck, Old Testament Exegesis, 53). 305 Marc Vervenne (―Genesis 1,1-2,4. The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch,‖ in Studies in the Book of Genesis [ed. A. Wénin], 66) defines, ―redactors are composers and the result of their redational work is a composition.‖ Römer (―Exodus Narrative,‖ 157) posits ―[t]he Pentateuch was edited by a very few elites, who knew each other and met in Jerusalem (and Babylon?).‖ 306 Weimar (Studien zur Priesterschrift, 35-36) conjectures, ―Ex 1,7 ist somit Abschluß eines Erzählbogens und darin zugleich ein neue erzählerische Spannung erzeugendes Element im Blick auf die Darstellung der im folgenden erzählten Geschichte der Israelsöhne.‖ Henceforth, Ex 1.13-14 is, according to Weimar, the beginning of Exodus. 181
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
imaged by taking a scalpel and separating (our) v.7 from (our) v.5, severing also v.6 from v.8, and interlacing nP‘s v.6 around P‘s v.7.307
nP 1.6 1.8-12 P 1.1-5 1.7
To fortify the textual interweaving resumptive repetition is implemented by the editor. Since v.5 has ended with the datum Myrcmb hyh Pswyw, the nP compositor/redactor need only to repeat Pswy and Myrcm in order to commence in a continuous narrative having first interlocked his material to P‘s; accordingly, 1.6 conveys that Pswy had died, and 1.8 speaks of a new king of Myrcm who did not know Pswy. Further, nP reiterates the proliferation theme of
P (wmc(yw bryw…l)r#y ynbw [1.7]) by transcribing, br l)r#y ynb M(Mwc(w (1.9). These two pieces of corroboration converge, moreover: the new king articulates fear that the Israelites will increase (hbry-Np) still further by adding (Pswnw—a paronomasia of Joseph‘s appellative aetiology) to Egypt‘s enemies (1.10; cf. hbry in 1.12). Thus by the resumptive repetition of two Leitworte, and therefore a Leitmotiv, textual interweaving is accomplished thereby producing an expansion unit.308 2.3.1.2 Interfuse Technique The above example of textual interweaving is accordingly so at the anterior of the unit; the posterior of 1.6,8-12 is an example of textual interfusion. Non-P is able to simply affix his v.12 with P‘s v.13, having composed his material such that its contours bridge to the contents of (our) 1.13-14. To effectively interfuse 1.(6)8-12 with 1.13-14 a similar key term is 309 mimicked—nP‘s twlbs, ―forced labour‖ (1.11), is equivalent to P‘s hrwb(, ―labour‖ (1.14x3).310
nP 1.6 1.8-12 P 1.7 1.13-14
307 Cf. Th.C. Vriezen, ―Exodusstudien Exodus I,‖ VT 17/3 (1967): 335, 343-345. 308 ―Exod 1,6.8 was one of the last parts of the backward extension of the Moses story, building a bridge between the new non-P ancestral story…and a pre-existing Moses story‖ (Carr, ―Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives‖ in Studies in the Book of Genesis [ed. A. Wénin], 292). 309 All other occurrences of twlbs are Ex 2.11; 5.4, 5 (nP); 6.6, 7 (P). 310 x2 Occurrences of hrwb( in Ex include 2.23 ; 5.9, 11; 6.6, 9; 12.25, 26; 13.5; 27.19; 30.16; 35.21, 24; 36.1, 3, 5; 38.21; 39.32, 40, 42. 182
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
As a result of the above two redactional processes, the Priestly verses 1.7 and 1.13-14 can now be seen, in the new light of nP editing, as summary statements of the foregoing sets of verses, 1.1-6 and 1.8-12 respectively.311 Another instance of textual interfusion by the non-Priestly redactor/compositor, is near the end of the Ex 1-2 corpus. Non-P has relayed the events surrounding Moses in Midian and needs to shift to and incorporate P‘s précis of 2.23aβ-25; to do this nP inserts the phrase
Myrcmb Klm tmyw Mhh Mybrh Mymyb yhyw (2.23aα). nP (2.1-10) 2.11-2.23aα P 2.23aβ-25
Originally the P chronicle read seamlessly from the Hebrews‘ ruthless, embittered forced labour in making bricks of mortar in 1.13-14 to their groans and cries therefrom in 2.23*. But since this narrative arc is severed to interject copious text(s), temporal phraseology (yhyw
Mhh Mybrh Mymyb) combined with mention of a previous character (Myrcmb Klm) calls the reader back to the scenes depicted in (our) 1.8-14.312 The beginning of the 2.11-2.23aα unit, like its ending, also possesses an analogous temporal clause: h#m ldgyw Mhh Mymyb yhyw (2.11aα).313 2.3.1.3 Insertion Technique The difference between editorial interfusion and insertion is that the former attaches literary material which parrot or echo integral vocabulary to other authorial literature while the latter simply fuses one textual unit to another without making overt effort at a linguistically synthetic transition, since in the latter instance the compositor is the same. There are two examples of redaction utilizing insertion technique.
nP 1.15-22 2.1-10 (2.11-2.23aα) P (1.13-14)
311 Weimar (―Exodus 1,1-2,10,‖ 188) explicates: Bemerkenswerterweise sind die Randaussagen der beiden Textabschnitte unter Verwendung priesterschriftlicher Aussageelemente gebildet (1,1a.7.13+14*), die somit das übergreifende Kompositionsraster abgeben und darin eine beide Abschnitte zusammenfassende gemeinsame Kompositionstechnik anzeigen, wobei überdies mit Hilfe der chiastisch aufeinander bezogenen Leitworte l)r#oy ynb und hmyrcm 1,1a // Myrcm und l)r#oy ynb t) 1,13 beide Erzählabschnitte verklammert sind; außerdem ist die schon priesterschriftlich sorgsam gestaltete Aussagefolge 1.13-14* durch Einfügung von 1.14aβ zu einer dem Strukturmuster der beiden Textabschnitte (ABBA) entsprechenden Textsequenz (vgl. nur die Schlußworte der viergliedrigen Aussagereihe [Krpb/h#Oq hrb(b//hd#ob hrb( lkbw/Krpb) ausgebaut worden. 312 Is the verb tmyw a pluperfect aspect, meaning the pharaoh had died at some prior point in time thus rendering this datum achronistic; or, is the verb‘s aspect simple past, which would imply that the king of Egypt died at when Moses was living in Midian with his wife and son? If the former is the case, then this edited phrase is actually of little meaning and function in the final text and redaction activity. 313 See Driver, Exodus, 16-17. 183
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Ex 1.15-22 has little in common which 1.1-14 by way of syntax, vocabulary, or theme— characters are introduced and they speak of other subjects; provided such a scene change, it is palpable that there is little to no linguistic transitioning (except Myrcmb Klm). A consecutive pericope can thus be readily inserted, for the nP redactor/compositor has pulled apart wide the Priestly material, as it were; Ex 2.1-10 is inserted at this juncture, situated between the pericopes concerning Pharaoh‘s genocide plans (1.15-22) and Moses in Midian (2.11-23aα). 2.3.1.4 Combined Techniques: Consecutive nP Textual Units The substantial nP expansions between 1.13-14 and 2.23aβ, though numbering three pericopes, were not likely edited in various stages, as implicitly implied above—actually, Ex 1.15–2. 23aα was in all likelihood composed in a short timeframe.314 What is indicated above is ultimately that the redactor was confronted with fabricating one transitional statement (2.23aα); also, there were a few strategic segueing statements within his own material that needed to be penned for coherence‘s sake.315 It has been stated that 1.15 is a new literary start, yet 1.22 is integral in pivoting from the first pericope to the second, 2.1-10. The third consecutive nP pericope can commence uncomplicatedly with its temporal sentence (2.11aα); and it can finish and reconnect with P material by use of another temporal clause (2.23aα), the latter further serving as segueing datum. 2.3.2 Religio-theological Factors of nP Redactional Composition The process of composing/redacting supplementary textual units in Ex 1-2 has been discussed; now the religio-theological perspective imbedded in the materials of both the basic layer and editorial layers can be evaluated. 2.3.2.1 Religio-theological Factors of P Grundschicht Since the P material is the basic layer, its religio-theological outlook should be forthright. 2.3.2.1.1 Proliferation The initial data of P‘s Exodus account comprises a tribal list of the Israelites; through the twelve sons of Jacob/Israel come a total of seventy people who emigrate from Canaan to Egypt (1.1-5). This increase together with reports of further multiplication (1.7) adds up to the theologically pregnant concept of proliferation. Proliferation is for P a Leitmotiv.
314 For the relationship between 1.13-14 and 2.23*-25 see Weimar, Studien zur Priesterschrift, 64, 86- 87. 315 Boorer (―Source and Redaction Criticism,‖ 117): ―Within Exodus 1-2 it would seem to form a coherent literary composition that both draws on existing tradition but also comprises its own literary composition, designed to bring together traditional motifs into a coherent whole.‖ 184
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
316 In Gen 1.28 and 9.1 there is a commission to w)lmw wbrw wrp. Gen 9.7 reiterates while alternating order of verbs and adding another: wbrw…wcr# wbrw wrp. And Ex 1.7 embraces all above terms and even adds still one more: w)lmtw…wmc(yw wbryw wcr#yw wrp. Consequently, P‘s Ex 1.1-5,7 documentation portents to Divine blessing and faithfulness. 2.3.2.1.2 Covenant Faithfulness tyrb-t) Myhl) rkzyw (2.24bα). This data is significant—both the action and the object. The other objects God remembers (-t) Myhl) rkzyw) are people, for example Noah (Gen 8.1), Abraham (Gen 19.29), and Rachel (Gen 30.22).317 God remembering a covenant is an idiom for action, covenant faithfulness.318 What, then, is the content of the covenant to which God is obligated to respond?319 One of the terms of God‘s covenant with Abraham (and his descendants [Gen 17.7, 9,
19, 21]) is proliferation (d)m d)mb + √hbr; Gen 17.2, 20 [cf. d)m d)mb + √hrp; Gen 320 17.6]), though this is transpiring in Ex 1-2 (d)m d)mb + √hbr [+ √hrp]; Ex 1.7). A second term of the Abrahamic covenant is God granting the land of Canaan to Abraham‘s descendants (Gen 17.8; cf. Gen 15.8 nP). So this presumably is the nature of God‘s forthcoming impetus action from remembering covenant; indeed, after the exodus from Egypt, the wilderness wanderings, and the conquest God delivers on this promise—God exercises covenant faithfulness by gracing proliferation and a land to possess. Finally, it is intriguing to note that what triggers God‘s recollection of the covenant is a series of multisensory responses. God hears (√hm#; 2.24a) the Israelites‘ groaning; God sees 321 (√h)r; 2.25a) them; God knows (√(dy; 2.25b). Thus through audible, ocular, and cognitive means Elohim remembers.
316 Gen 1.22 agrees with these verbatim phrases, though they are addressed to animals. 317 Note the additional parallelism between Gen 30.22 and Ex 2.24 with the verb (m# attributed to Elohim. In the former case God remembers and then heeds Rachel (and opens her womb); in the latter instance God hears Israelite‘s groaning‘s and then remembers the covenant with the Patriarchs. 318 B.S. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (SBT, 37; Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenon, Inc.,1962). 319 Rendtorff (The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch [trans. John J. Scullion; JSOTSup 89; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990], 192) comments, ―the ‗theological‘ priestly texts in patriarchal story find their clear continuation in Exod. 2.23-25 and 6.2-9. Likewise the retrospective linking of these texts with the primeval story is obvious: the divine address in 9.8-17 has as its central point the ‗covenant‘ of God with Noah and shows many a connection in content and language with Genesis 17 which speak of the ‗covenant‘ with Abraham.‖ 320 Gen 17.2 and 6 relate to Abraham‘s lineage through Isaac, and 17.20—which also employs √hrp— applies to Ishmael‘s line. 321 Janzen (Exodus, 26) observes, ―the repeated noun subject, ‗God heard…God remembered… God saw…God knew,‘ makes a fourfold emphasis on God that matches their fourfold cries‖ of the previous verse. 185
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.3.2.2 Religio-theological Factors of nP Redactional Composition The non-P redactional stratum has contributed much of its own socio-religious and theological viewpoints through its large extension units. 2.3.2.2.1 Tyranny (and Liberation) The nP stratum portrays Egypt as a tyrannous state, expanding beyond P‘s terse description
(1.13-14). Non-P speaks of an atmosphere of forced labour (twlbs; 1.11; 2.11) with taskmasters (Mysm yr#; 1.11) over the Hebrews; all the while the Egyptians afflict (√hn(;
1.11, 12) the Hebrews, and beat them (√hkn; 2.11b). Furthermore, the monarch devices two plans to execute genocide on male Hebrew new-borns (1.16, 22). It is from this tyranny that the compositor(s) later develops the glorious counterpart of liberation (Ex 3-14/15). 2.3.2.2.2 Situational Ethics and the Divine Will There are several instances where the characters of Ex 1-2(nP) face ethical dilemmas; in the contest between conscious and king situational ethics results. The two midwives directly defy Pharaoh; having been commissioned to kill Hebrew boys at the birth-stool they do not do so, and later when confronted about it by the monarch they lied regarding the reason for the alive new-born males (1.15-19). It is recorded that the midwives feared God more than Pharaoh; and as a result God blessed them with children (1.20-21), whereas there is apparently no penalty on the part of Pharaoh for civil insubordination. The impulse to please God over against a human authority figure—to the extent of deceiving and lying to the latter—is an established theme (geprӓgte Themen) throughout scripture (Motivengeschichte). For example, Abraham (half-)lies to Abimelech about Sarah being his sister (Gen 20 nP); Isaac also uses the same lie concerning Rebekah his wife to the same man (Gen 26* nP); Jacob deceives several people a few times each; Rahab lies to her townspeople for the benefit of the Israelites whom God is blessing militaristically (Josh 2 nP). In each of these examples the Deity also blesses the liar. Abraham and Isaac depart from Abimelech with wealth; Jacob receives the birthright (Gen 25*, 27 nP), abundant flocks and herds (Gen 30* nP), etc.; the Israelites experience military success, in which Rahab and her family shares. Likewise, the midwives lie about the Hebrew boys birthed and they are consequently blessed by God with progeny of their own. Not only do the two midwives directly defy the Pharaoh, Jochebed and the princess are also indirectly recalcitrant toward the king of Egypt‘s orders. The former first rebelled by keeping her son alive for three months in the house, and then guarded at the Nile‘s edge; the latter rescued the babe out of the Nile, as opposed to drowning him in said river as decreed
186
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
(1.22). Further, Pharaoh‘s daughter continues to defy her father in promoting the life of Moses by hiring a wet-nurse to wean him, and in the same gesture Jochebed‘s civil disobedience is encouraged and even sponsored. Grown Moses, furthermore, faces a case of situational ethics when he views the slavery first-hand. Moses takes justice into his own hands, murdering an Egyptian taskmaster who was beating a Hebrew; this determination naturally undermines the ruling monarch‘s order and his workforce. Pharaoh, in response, seeks to execute justice by having Moses killed. 2.3.2.2.3 Raising the Lowly (…and Bringing Low the Exalted) Another socio-religious element in nP Ex 1-2 is the reversal of fates, namely raising the lowly. Moses is clearly raised from the level of slave to adopted son of royalty ultimately becoming prince of Egypt. Also, Jochebed is elevated not in a class system manner but economically, receiving wages for nursing—wages that those engaged in hard labour apparently did not obtain. Later on God will bring low the exalted (Ex 7-14/15). 2.3.2.2.4 Saviours A theme of saviours is identified of two points, in particular, of the nP composition. For all intents and purposes Pharaoh‘s daughter saves/rescues Moses from death—delivering him from the very mode of destruction of male Hebrew babies. When shepherds drive the seven sisters away from a well, Moses arises and saves (√h#y) them (2.17). Whereas the Egyptian princess delivered infant Moses by drawing (√h#m) him out of the water (2.10b), Moses 322 delivers (√lcn) the Midian priestesses whereupon he draws (√hld) water for them (2.19). Moreover, the saved saviour later is the saving instrument of God‘s national deliverance/salvation and the Reed Sea (Ex 14). 2.3.3 Sitz in der Literatur: Ex 2.1-10 vis-à-vis The Primary History (Gen-Kgs) (cf. 1.2.4.3; 1.2.6.4) Having examined the process and content of nP‘s compositional redactions and having traced the socio-religio-theological themes therein and within its proximate (canonical) context, the same tasks shall be undertaken in the broader context of the Primary History; for, ―[o]n pourrait déceler dans l‘ensemble des livres de Gn á Rois une macrostructure.‖323
322 Explicably the verbs for ―draw‖ differ; h#m must play on Moses‘ name, while hld connotes the use of a bucket as for a well (BDB, 194; HALOT, 222). 323 Römer and Schmid, ―Introduction: Pentateuque, Hexateuque, Ennéateuque: Exposé du problème‖ in Les Dernières Rédactions (eds. T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid), 4. 187
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
In his influential work concerning the redaction of the Enneateuch (Gen–Kgs), K. Schmid324 theorizes that Genesis and Exodus (and following) were two independently written traditions competing for Israel‘s origin.325 That these two literary complexes are separate textual blocks is evident, he argues, in the mutual reticence between the two. Indeed, as Schmid points out, Gen and Ex–Kgs have been linked together by a post-priestly redactor in three major places: Gen 15 which has foreknowledge of the enslavement of Israel,326 Ex 3-4 which views in retrospect the time of the patriarchs,327 and at the edges of both textual complexes, Gen 50–Ex 1, though not without defect.328 Other than these three locations of redactional activity it is tenuous to assume Gen and Ex ff. were part of the same tradition.329 This hypothesis has great portent to our thesis, since is only recorded in two places in the Hebrew Bible: the Flood Narrative (Gen 6.5–9.17), and Moses‘ Infancy (Ex 2.1- 10). If Gen and Ex ff. were ―two blocks (each literarily developed) [that] have been redactionally attached to one another,‖330 then what bearing does that have on the (intentional?) lexical nexus of in the Primordial History and Exodus textual complexes?331 There is a formidable way in which our thesis interfaces with the hypothesis that Schmid has expounded. The presence of in Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* is plausibly another one of the few links by which the non/post-Priestly redactor has attached the Gen and Ex-
324 Erzväter und Exodus / Genesis and the Moses Story. See also idem, ―The So-Called Yahwist,‖ 29- 50; idem, ―Une grande historiographie allant de Genèse à 2 Rois a-t-elle un jour existé?‖ in Les Dernières Rédactions‖ (eds. T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid), 35-45. 325 Schmid is certainly not alone in this perspective (Genesis and the Moses Story, xii). Cf. Jan Christian Gretz, ―The Transition‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid), 73-88; Blum, ―The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid), 89-106. 326 Genesis and the Moses Story, 158-171. Gen 15 mirror‘s P‘s Gen 17. 327 Genesis and the Moses Story, 172-193. Ex 3-4 mirror‘s P‘s Ex 5-6. Cf. Otto, ―Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus‖ in Studies in the Book of Exodus (ed. M. Vervenne), 107, 109; Dozeman, ―The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid), 107-129; Levin, ―The Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds. T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid), 131-142. 328 Genesis and the Moses Story, 50-60, 214-224; cf. Blum, ―Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvӓtern und Exodus: Ein Gesprӓch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen‖ in Abschied vom Jahwisten (eds. J.C. Gertz, K. Schmid, and M. Witte), 145-151; Ludwig Schmidt, ―Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus durch die Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39-50*) und Exodus 1,‖ ZAW 124/1 (2012): 19-37. 329 See the debate between K. Schmid (―Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel,‖ 187-208) and J.S. Baden (―The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus,‖ 161-186) in Bib 93/2 (2012). Cf. also Davies (―Transition,‖ 75) who advances ―at all three points that we have considered (Exodus 1 and 3; Genesis 50) there is a strong link between Genesis and Exodus in the non-Priestly material, which there is no good reason to see as post-Priestly.‖ 330 Genesis and the Moses Story, 346. 331 Cf. Bernard Gosse (―Moïse entre l‘alliance des Patriarches et celle du Sinaï,‖ SJOT 11/1 [1997]) asserts hbt in Ex 2 (and Gen 6-9) is another case of ―le continuité de l‘historie des Patriarches‖ (6). 188
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2Kgs literary blocks together.332 If P is the foundational literary layer (the so-called Grundschicht) of Gen-Lev,333 then it stands to reason that P gave identical terminology to the two structures/sanctuaries, i.e. the Genesis ark and Tabernacle, which were Divinely blueprinted: Nwr). As for the other stratum, nP composited the Ex 2.1-10 account (as a part of the Ex 1-14* complex) and coined Moses‘ craft hbt based on an interplay with its environs (see ch.4); on the redacting level, nP, in tying the Gen–Ex-Kgs complexes together (in addition to compositing Gen 15, Ex 3-4, and Gen 50–Ex 1), edited P‘s term (Nwr)) replacing 334 it with his own (hbt). Non-P‘s usage of hbt in Ex 2* and Gen 6-9*, consequently, not links those two narratives but also places both receptacles on a trajectory vectoring to the Tabernacle, and the ark of the covenant within (see further chs. 4, 6).335 Therefore, if this argument has merit as the most feasible explanation of in two source/redaction strata and literary blocks (Gen and Ex–Kgs), then the nP redactor—yea, theologian—is responsible for the linking of the analogous life preserving receptacles in Ex 2* and Gen 6-9*.336
2.4 Summary To summarize our diachronic exegesis, several interrelated evaluations can be made. The textual unit of Ex 2.1-10 possesses a well-defined beginning and ending point thereby elucidating its unity. The compositor of said narrative is nP, and the received text is sound with little complications. From its form the genre of the story is deduced as legend generally with an infant exposure (in contradistinction from abandonment) motif subtype specifically. The Ex 2* legend of Moses‘ birth and upbringing were orally shaped with influence of the Sargon of Akkad tradition (Legend of Sargon) and the Jeroboam narrative (1 Kgs 11-12*). Ex 2* was influenced by and written after Jeroboam‘s account was transcribed (by DtrH), the latter taking place after the Book of the Law was found (and proper theological perspective
332 Propp (Exodus 1-18, 146) thinks the lexical nexus of hbt (Ex 2.2, 5 & Gen 6-9) and rmx (Ex 2.3 & Gen 11.3) is not alone strong enough to determine Ex 2.1-10 as possessive of the Yahwistic source. Carr (―Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story,‖ 283 n.35), on the other hand, does recognize hbt as ―[a]nother possible example of connection‖ between Gen and Ex (and following), though cautions that only ―a single word is a slender bridge on which to build such a theory.‖ 333 The end of P‘s stratum is debated, though it is generally accepted to span from Genesis 1 through Leviticus 9 or 16 at least. See Shectman and Baden, eds., The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions (AThANT, 95; Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009). 334 Schmid (Genesis and the Exodus Story, 255) views the synthesizing redaction of traditions to have occurred between 500-450 BCE. It should also be specified that the nP compositor of Ex–Num is different from the nP redactor/compositor of Gen. Cf. Schmid, ―So-Called Yahwist,‖ 35. 335 Non-P makes a similar move when inserting sacrifice episode into the Flood story—it foreshadows, and preempts, P‘s sacrificial system in Exodus–Leviticus. 336 Cf. Rendtorff (trans. D.J.A. Clines), ―The ‗Yahwist‘ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism,‖ JSOT 3 (1977): 9 and Van Seter‘s response in ―The Yahwist as Theologian? A Response,‖ JSOT 3 (1977): 18 regarding redaction of two tradition complexes. 189
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
thereby regained) and the immediate processes comprising Josiah‘s reform of 621-620 BCE; hence a compositional date circa 620-600 BCE is submitted. Non-P likely wrote near Jerusalem, most feasibly Bethel. Ex 2.1-10, as well as other portions surrounding it (i.e., 1. 6,8-12; 1.15-22; 2.11-23aα), were composited and redacted by nP into a Priestly skeletal structure (Ex 1.1-5, 7, 13-14; 2.23aβ-25). The socio-religious factors of the Ex 2.1-10 textual expansion was primarily to foreshadow the liberation of Israel through the Reed Sea and to prop up Moses as the saved saviour.
190
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER 4
TEBĀH: ITS DONOR LANGUAGE AND HEBREW RECEPTION
Heretofore hbt has been exegetically examined in the only two passages of the Hebrew Bible where it is found: the Flood Narrative (Gen 6-9*) and the Moses Infancy Story (Ex 2*). At the outset of this investigation (Introduction) it was stated that is not native to the Hebrew language, which compounds the curiosity of the problem. In this chapter we shall identify the donor language from which the Hebrews had loaned the word . The popular and longevous proposals for the donor language have been Akkadian and Egyptian.1
The eventuated goal of identifying the donor of hbt is to elucidate the term‘s original conceptual connotations in its native language, as well as how the Hebrew writers/redactors might have both/either retained traces of the same meaning and/or how they might have imbued it with other, alternate meaning. Regarding the intricacies of the loaning and borrowing of foreign lexemes, P.V. Mankowski states, ―loanwords are in no sense ‗borrowed‘ from donor language as intact entities but are new creations within the receptor language.‖2 In fact, as S.J. Lieberman distinguishes: ―Lexical influence may result in a change in the use of native morphemes (loanshifts), in the importation of new morphemes (loanwords), or in a combination of these two types of change (loanblends). This borrowing may have further ramifications in change of the lexical structure.‖3 Such disseminations of now lie before us. In turning to the Akkadian language, the literature of the Gilgamesh Epic and the Sargon Legend will be evaluated. When examining the Egyptian language, the lexeme in question is sought in various source materials. Additionally, Egyptian‘s hieroglyphic descendant Coptic shall briefly be consulted in tangential analysis, namely the Gnostic corpora of Nag Hammadi, and the Greek influences of this tradition will in part augment the
1 See further below. Also, in ch.1 it was mentioned M. Dahood submitted the possibility of Ebla as the origin of (―Eblaite and Biblical Hebrew,‖ CBQ [1982]: 1-24). However, this suggestion will not be taken seriously, for Dahood‘s predilection to solve all issues of rare terms Hebrew with Ugaritic, and here the cousin contemporary language of Eblaite, is, at this point in scholarship, a dubious solution. 2 Paul V. Mankowski, Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 4; so also Stephen J. Lieberman, The Sumerian loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian (HSS, 22; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977), 21. 3 The Sumerian loanwords, 21. Cf. Mankowski‘s discussion on calque translations as ―a creation of a word or a phrase as a consequence of bilingual interference whereby the structure of the imitated word is preserved but the component morphemes are those of the receptor language‖ (Akkadian Loanwords, 9). 191
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
semantic, conceptual evolutionary trajectory. Finally, a look at the Levantine milieu will be helpful in determining the points of contact and assimilation between the two most formidable cultures of the Near East, the Egyptian kingdom and the Sumero-Akkadian – Babylonian empire—with Israel positioned at its crossroads. This lexical examination, while engaging with original languages and citing the transliteration thereof, is not primarily concerned with etymological, morphological, or palaeographical matters. Nor does this linguistic study seek to redefine the Hebrew word hbt. Rather, our aim is to extract the conceptualizations of this term in its original language and to project its (theological-)conceptual connotations in its Hebrew usage.
1. Akkadian Akkadian is a prospective candidate as the donor language wherefrom the Hebrews borrowed 4 hbt; for, it is widely and historically maintained that the Genesis Flood Narrative owes its existence largely to the dependency on the Epic of Gilgamesh (hereafter GE) Tablet XI.5 Akkadian, furthermore, has in it inscriptional repertoire the Legend of Sargon (hereafter SL) which is greatly analogous to the Moses Infancy Story. Henceforth, if the biblical Flood and Foundling stories have GE and SL as their nearest resemblance in form, content, and genre then it may be deduced the probability of hbt as Akkadian in origin is consequently quite great.
C. Cohen, in his definitive essay about hbt, wrote: ―A literary connection between the receptacle mentioned in the Legend of Sargon and the boat of the Akkadian flood story has never been noted, but should such a connection exist, it might help explain why hbt was used in both the biblical flood story and the story of Moses‘ birth.‖6 Unlike the Hebrew accounts, however, the Akkadian terminology for the arks is not identical in both aforementioned narratives. What, then, are the portents of and similarities among the Akkadian Flood and Foundling narratives; and how do these similarities and/or dissimilarities interface with the Hebrew versions? These issues shall be addressed directly.
4 Technically Gilgamesh is in Old Babylonian, though it, along with Assyrian, is in the (Sumero-) Akkadian language family. See further H. Zimmern‘s explication in Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonische Kultureinfluss (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915), 1 n.1 5 See e.g., Zimmern, The Babylonian and The Hebrew Genesis, III (trans. J. Hutchison; London: David Nutt, 1901), 56-58; Rendsburg, ―The Biblical Flood Story‖ in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria, 115-127, esp. 117; Leonard W. King, Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition (London: Oxford University Press, 1918), 130. 6 C. Cohen, ―Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies.‖ JANESCU 4 (1972): 42. 192
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.1 Utnapishtim‟s Ark (Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI) Utnapishtim‘s vessel is ubiquitously, and naturally, referred to as elippu throughout the eleventh tablet of GE,7 meaning ―ship, boat.‖8 It is once, though, described as ekallu (XI 95),9 ―royal palace.‖10 A word borrowed from Sumerian,11 ekallu is a term of poetic variation, standing in synonymous parallelism with elippu in the previous line (XI 94).12 The commoner term shall initially be discussed further and then the scarcer. Focusing at first on elippu, a common construction in Babylonian culture was the elippu ṭēbitu, ―dive boat;‖13 and this is persuasive enough for H. Zimmern to see Akkadian as the origin of the loanword .14 However, A.S. Yahuda opposes this postulation arguing it
―must be rejected on phonetic grounds alone as ṭēbitu is from (b+ ‗to sink‘…the stress is on ‗diving‘ and not on ‗ship.‘‖15 16 Ekallu alternatively means ―palace,‖ the equivalent in Hebrew being lkyh. Why would a large boat be coined a temple or palace? M.E.L. Mallowan suggests, ―the narrator had in mind a floating Ziggurrat and that he imagined one—always a refuge in time of flood—as sailing over the vast inland sea.‖17
7 GE XI 24, 27, 28, 76, 84, 89, 94, 95, 141, 142, 172, 197, 265, 266, 271, 310 (Simo Parpola, The Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh [State Achieves of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, vol. I; Finland: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 1997], 124). 8 CAD IV:90; Jeremy Black, Andrew George and Nicholas Postgate, eds., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000), 69. 9 GE XI 96 (Parpola, Epic of Gilgamesh, 124). Parpola‘s enumeration here (but not everywhere) differs from Spieser‘s in ANET, line 95. 10 CAD IV:52. 11 See John Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian (2nd ed.; HSS, 45; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 379-380. Cf. Stephen J. Lieberman, The Sumerian loanwords, 216-217 (§163). 12 Cf. again Heidel (The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels [2nd ed.; Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1949], 232): ―The Gilgamesh Epic calls this craft by the general term elippu, ‗vessel,‘ ‗ship,‘ ‗boat.‘ Once it also uses êkallu (Tablet XI: 95), a word which, derived from the Sumerian language, literally means ‗a great house‘ and occurs in references to palaces and temples. This term is employed as a poetic designation for the ark…‖ 13 Cf. CAD XIX:67. An adjectival usage forms ―sunken boat.‖ 14 Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 45. 15 Language, 114 n.2. Yahuda goes on to muse: ―it is astonishing that in a narrative originating from Babylonia, the most important object in the whole story, the Ark, is not designated by any of the Akkadian words for ship, not even by elippu whereby the ship of the Babylonian Noah, Ut-napištim, is invariably designated and which also appears in later Hebrew as )pfl;)i, but by hbftIi@‖ (Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Part 1 [London: Humphrey Milford & Oxford University Press, 1933], 114 [cf. n.2]). This last point is erroneous, however; )pfl;)i is not an attested word for boat or ship ―later‖ in the Hebrew bible or ―later‖ in Modern Hebrew. Cf. also Heidel, Parallels, 233. 16 Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 8, 68; Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 493; Black, George, and Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 67. 17 Mallowan, ―Reconsidered,‖ 65. Mallowan‘s spelling of Ziggurat (with a double ―r‖) differs from the usage throughout. 193
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Ziggurats were typically seven-storied temples, roughly in the shape of a pyramid, or, more precisely, a stepped structure.18 Utnapishtim‘s ship, similarly, has seven stories (XI 60- 61), though cubical in shape (XI 30).19 Before seven steps were the standard, Ziggurats had three layers;20 this synthesizes with Noah‘s three layered craft. ―There is a connection between temples and ships,‖ Haupt illuminates, ―[t]he gods of Babylonia were carried about in sacred boats at the great festivals, esp. at that of the New Year about the time of the vernal equinox. The same custom obtained in Egypt.‖21 (This last point shall be developed further below [§3. Levant]). Beyond the two terms for ship in GE, there are several other words describing the ark‘s features that do find commonality in Genesis. A.S. Yahuda lists Mwht, rpk, and rpg as clearly borrowed from Akkadian and thus the biblical Flood story is dependent upon the Babylonian one.22 1.2 Sargon‟s Ark (Legend of Sargon) In the singular occasion of SL where it mentions the floating craft (ln.6) there is divergence concerning its spelling, and hence terminology, due to variant traditions; one textual tradition reads qup-˹pi˺ while another quppu.23 Regarding the former term, it is an anomalous occurrence; and the difficulty presides in the penultimate syllable. Perhaps in qup-˹pi˺ we have an apocopated compounded term. For, pí is an abbreviated form of pišannu meaning ―chest, container, basket, box,‖24 and that would leave qup as a semblance of short form for quppu; however, qup is not an attested, and therefore not a legitimate, abbreviation for
18 Haupt, ―The Ship of the Babylonian Noah‖ in Beiträge zur Allyriologie und Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft (eds. F. Delitzch and P. Haupt. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs‘sche Buchhandlung, 1927), 10; Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 138. 19 Interestingly, ―Xisuthrus‘ ship was, as it were, a floating temple-tower of wood, turned upside down. …Xenophon states that the stone-pyramid, or temple-tower, of Larissa near Nineveh was 200 feet high‖ (Haupt, ―The Ship of the Babylonian Noah,‖ 11). 20 Stephen Bertman, Handbook To Life In Ancient Mesopotamia (New York: Oxford, 2003), 195. 21 Haupt, ―The Ship of the Babylonian Noah,‖ 10. 22 Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Part 1 (London: Humphrey Milford & Oxford University Press, 1933), 113. To a lesser extend the words r+fmf-M#eOge@, lkf)a:ma, and lw@b@ma are congruous in both languages and accounts (114). 23 Lewis (The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero who was Exposed at Birth [ASOR Diss. Series, 4; Cambridge, Mass.: ASOR, 1980], 24) quotes and translates from text B which has the reading qup-˹pi˺; alternatively, he notes text C attests the variant form qu-up-pu (ibid. 24 n.6). See also CAD, XIII:308. 24 CAD XII:420; Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 513. Cf. Lieberman, The Sumerian loanwords, 181-182 (§106). 194
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
quppu.25 The closest construction of the syllables quppi attested, rather, is rabi quppi, who is an official in charge of a cash box (quppu).26 Concerning the variant spelling (qu-up-pu), then, quppu has the following definitions: ―1. (a wicker basket or wooden chest), 2. cage, 3. (a box for silver and precious objects)‖.27 The third entry has evocative ideological constellations with SL. Some quppu were a ―cash box at the temple gate for receiving offerings‖28 and others are a ―cash box holding a woman‘s peculium‖.29 Interestingly, the antagonist of SL is both a woman and a priestess (ētnu) hence conjoining the above definitions; is the receptacle of the high priestess a simple basket, or could it be her personal or her temple‘s cash box? Despite the above stated curious similarities, it does not seem probably that the vessel is a cash box for a few reasons. First, the text says it is a šá šu-ri, ―reed,‖ quppu;30 if this were a cash box the material would not readily safeguard its contents. Secondly, the vessel is coated with iṭṭî, ―bitumen,‖ for the purpose of buoyancy.31 Therefore, as CAD indicates, the proper placement of the SL receptacle is under the first entry, viz., a wicker basket or wooden chest. (The second usage, ―cage,‖ or ―Vogelkäfig‖ more specifically,32 is employed in The Annals of Sennacherib III: 27.33) H. Zimmern defines the Old Babylonian term quppu akin to Akkadian‘s arānu:
―Kasten;‖ the Hebrew equivalent of the latter is Nwr), according to Zimmern who further defines the latter term ―Lade, Sarg.‖34 Only once out of approximately two hundred occurrences in the Hebrew Bible does Nwr) mean coffin (Gen 50.26; LXX: soro/j), though; otherwise, it nearly always refers to the ark (chest/Lade) of the covenant. Consequently, there appears to be a stricter semantic range when in comes to the biblical usage, in contrast to Akkadian/Babylonian usages.
25 CAD XIII:307-311. 26 CAD XIII:310. 27 CAD XIII:307 (bold numbering is original); Black, George, and Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 291. Interestingly, quppatu also means ―box, basket‖ (CAD XIII: 307). 28 CAD XIII:308. Cf. A. Leo Oppenheim, ―A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East,‖ JNES 6/2 (1947): 116-120. 29 CAD XIII:310. Cf. J.N. Ford, ―Another Look at the Mandaic Incantation Bowl BM 91715,‖ JANES 29 (2002): 36. 30 Lewis, Sargon Legend, 24; cf, CAD XVII.3:368-369. 31 Lewis, Sargon Legend, 24; cf. CAD VII:310. 32 Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 15 (34); Black, George, and Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 291. 33 David Marcus, A Manual of Akkadian (New York: University Press of America, 1978), 107/153. 34 Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 34. 195
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.3 The Two Akkadian Arks Compared There are many similarities between the two Akkadian/Babylonian vessels, nevertheless. For example, Cohen has noticed there is a ―reference to a bābu ‗gate‘ on both vessels, a term which is exceedingly rare in nautical terminology.‖35 Other similarities between the vessels of Utnapishtim and Sargon are the building material. Utnapishtim is commanded to tear down his reed hut (kikkišu) and with the same material to build a ship (GE XI 20-22); likewise, Sargon‘s mother had placed him in qup-˹pi˺ šá šu-ri, a ―reed basket‖36 or ―a basket of reed bundle‖37 (SL 6). And in both SL (6) and GE (XI 54, 65) the vessel is sealed with iṭṭû/iṭṭîm, ―bitumen‖38 (the later source also speaks of ―asphalt‖—cf. Ex 2.3!). Beyond the semantic and forensic similarities, there are homogenous conceptualizations of the socio-religious sort as well. This harmony is found in the fact that, again, Utnapishtim‘s vessel is once denoted to be temple-like; and, in SL the foundling‘s mother—the maker and dispenser of the vessel—is in all likelihood a priestess, ētnu. This nexus has religio-theological imports that are shared elsewhere within the Levant (see §3 further below). 1.4 The Arks of Utnapishtim, Sargon, Noah, and Moses: A Quadrilateral Analysis The stuff of reeds and bitumen essentially finds a quadrilateral interplay when the Noah and Moses narratives are juxtaposed with GE and SL. Both biblical crafts have related sealants: bitumen and pitch on the one hand (tpz + rmx; Ex 2.3), and asphalt on the other (rpk; Gen 39 40 6.17); and, whereas Moses‘ vessel is wholly made of reeds ()mg; Ex 2.3), it has been argued (ch.2 1.2.6.4) that so also were reeds (Myni@qf; Gen 6.14) a crucial part of the construction of Noah‘s. Moreover, the bābu item—common to both Akkadian texts—has tenuous counterpart in the biblical passages, notwithstanding the fact that the same lexical nexus is not present in Gen 6-9* and Ex 2*. Gen 6.16a describes the having a door
35 C. Cohen, ―Hebrew tbh,‖ 43; underline original. Others have translate bābu as ―hatch‖ (Lewis, Sargon Legend, 24) or ―door‖ (Speiser, ANET, 119 n.3), yet ―gate‖ is certainly within the semantic range (cf. Huehnergard, A Grammar of Akkadian, 489). See also Zimmern, Akkadische Fremdwörter, 30. 36 Lewis, Sargon Legend, 24. His transliteration and translation. 37 The word šu-ri denotes a reed bundle; the synonym qanû connotes a single reed (DCCMT Akkadian Glossary [http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/dccmt/cbd/akk/onebigfile.html]). 38 Black, George, and Postgate, A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, 137; see further Bruno Meissner, Beiträge zum Assyrischen Wörterbuch II (The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago Assyriological Studies, 4; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932), 4-6. It is curious that GE lists two terms (bitumen and asphalt) of sealant (XI 65-66[67]), for Ex 2.3 does as well (bitumen and pitch). 39 Cf. BDB, 498; HALOT, 493-494. 40 Yahuda (Language, 264) rebuts: ―In the case of Sargon everything is Babylonian: the ‗ark‘ is the basket-shaped boat Ḳuppu; the material is derived from the Babylonian reed suri, and was pitched with the asphalt iddi commonly used in Babylonia. In the case of Moses there is no trace of these things. Here everything is Egyptian: hbt is in meaning and form Egyptian, and the material is of the Egyptian papyrus reed )meg@O = ḳmȝ (Papyrus Nilotica).‖ 196
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
(xtp), the very feature which YHWH closes for the occupants (7.16b); in Ex 2 a lid is not explicitly referenced in the fabrication phase of the story (v.3), nevertheless the princess has to open (√xtp; v.6a) the in order to acquire the babe. Thus the Genesis vessel had a door (opening) and the Exodus vessel had a lid (opening). Regardless, the biblical accounts need not explicitly match in terminology concerning all features or even materials when in fact the vessels themselves are called twin terms: hbt. Despite these aforesaid adjectival connections in Akkadian—and despite an almost corresponding phenomenon attested in the Hebrew accounts—the lexical designation regarding what the floating craft actually is is heterogeneous. Consequently, the donor language must be sought elsewhere. We turn now to the Egyptian language, culture, and kingdom, one which is obviously intertwined with the Hebrew‘s history.
2. Egyptian The other major language proffered from whence is loaned is Egyptian.41 Notwithstanding, there has been strong disagreement regarding this option primarily because Egyptian does not possess a Flood and Foundling account as we find in the Babylonian language and culture. C. Cohen further underscores, ―The Egyptian cognates usually given as evidence for the alleged Egyptian origin of hbt are ḏbᵌt and tbt which are translated ‗Palast o.a; Schrein, Sarg,‘ and ‗Kasten‘ respectively. However, never are either of these words used in Egyptian texts for boats.‖42 Despite the lack of congruent narrative material, A.S. Yahuda, for one, contends that
Egyptian is exactly from where hbt sources. He sees dp.t, which means ship, as ―very plausible‖ for the ―real prototype of hbt…on the assumption that both dp.t and ḏbȝ.t were originally derived from the older form with the basic meaning ‗box, chest‘‖;43 for, ḏb.t, a vernacular form of ḏbȝ.t, is orthographically similar to dp.t.44 This, therefore, is Yahuda‘s rebuttal to the classic critique (as represented by Cohen) that hbt does not possess any
41 E.g., BDB, 1061; Driver, The Book of Genesis (WC; London: Nethuen & Co., 1904), 87; Wenham, Genesis 1-15 (WBC, 1; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 172; Propp, Exodus 1-18 (AB, 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999), 149; Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis; pt.2–From Noah to Abraham: Genesis VI9-XI32 [trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1964), 59; Heidel, Parallels, 233; Schmidt, Exodus I: 1,1–6,30 (BKAT II/1; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsverein, 1988), 69. 42 ―Hebrew tbh,‖ 39. Underlining his emphasis. Cf. Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache, 5 (Berlin: Akademie–Verlag, 1971), 261, 561. 43 Language, 205 n.3. Contra C. Cohen ―Hebrew tbh,‖ 39-40. 44 Yahuda, Language, 205 n.2. Tb.t is another vernacular form (ibid.). 197
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
bearing or resemblance to a watercraft: because ḏb.t (―ship‖) etymologically stands behind ḏbȝ.t (―coffin, coffer‖), ḏbȝ.t is thus a legitimate cognate to convey a type of caïque. The forms of in Genesis and Exodus are phonetically curious vis-à-vis Egyptian lexicography. In nearly every occurrence of in the Hebrew Bible (26/28) it is spelt hbt, which may relate to ḏbȝ meaning ―Kasten;‖ but, in two other cases, is inflected tbt, which may correspond to Egyptian ḏbȝ.t which means ―Schrein, Sarg.‖45 These aforementioned occurrences are Gen 6.14 and Ex 2.3, the initial usage of the term in each account; and they are inflected as such because they are in construct form (tbt), due to their modifiers (rpegO-ycIi(a: and )meg@O respectively), where the hê changes into a tāw. While it is natural to write a construct chain at the outset of a narrative for a new term, the alternate spelling of the noun—in this case—does evidently produce different loanwords. Nevertheless, both Hebrew forms of the one noun under examination correspond to what is a semantic overlap in Egyptian, Kasten and Sarg serving as (near) synonyms.46 2.1 Noah‟s Ark (Genesis 6-9*) A.S. Yahuda lists the following key Hebrew words (nouns and verbs) of the Flood Narrative 47 as Egyptian origin, thence borrowed: Myn@iqi, rhaco, lw@b@ma, hxfmf, M#eOg@e, t#q, and not least hbft@Ii. The Babylonian Noah‘s vessel is called a ship, even though Noah‘s vessel is portrayed more ship-like. Had the Hebrew writer(s) of the Flood Narrative wanted an Egyptian loanword for 48 ship yc was at their disposal; in fact, yc is employed in Num 24.24, Dan 11.30, Isa 33.21, and Ezek 30.9—the last criteria of which has a dual reference to Egypt. Yet, neither ―basket‖ nor ―ship‖ was selected in either biblical instance; evidently one word was desired for both accounts, and either ―basket‖ or ―ship‖ would not have worked in the opposite account of Gen 6-9* or Ex 2*. From Egyptian literature Deliverance of Humanity from Destruction bears mild resemblance to the Flood account in Genesis.49 This tale was not included in the Formenkritik of ch.2 because of its disparate structure and content; nevertheless, it is useful here and now to examine its thematic and linguistic affinities and to keep in mind the cultural influence of the Egyptians upon the Israelites, however taut or tenuous. In the Deliverance of Humanity
45 Erman and Grapow, Wörterbuch, 5, 561 (cf. tb.t ibid., 261). Interestingly, the Kasten is specific ―für gefangene Vögel‖ which corresponds to one definition of Akkadian‘s quppu (ibid., 561). 46 Note however that the forms are not the typical for box (hn) or coffin (). 47 Language, 206-216. 48 Lambdin, ―Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament,‖ JAOS 73 (1953): 153-154. BDB, 850. 49 See e.g. Gaster‘s listing of it as analogous to the Flood in his Myth, Legends, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol.1 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1981), 84. 198
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
from Destruction, ―mankind plotted something in the (very) presence of Re‖ (ANET, 11). Having ―perceived the things which were being plotted against him by mankind,‖ Re sought council of his god and creator Nun saying, ―I would not slay them until I had heard what (10) ye might say about it‘‖ (ANET, 11). Nun affirms Re‘s inclination to suppress humanity and the latter thence dispatched Hat-Hor as the agent of destruction. Subsequently, Re has a change of mind, apparently, for he stages a deceptive illusion before Hat-Hor, thwarting her mission. The scene is thus. Seven thousand jars of beer were made with red ochre and added with mash which thence had the appearance of blood; consequently, the night before the slaughter this red beer was poured out and ―the fields were filled with liquid for three palms…[t]hen this goddess [i.e. Hat-Hor] went at dawn, and she found this (place) flooded. Then her face (looked) beautiful therein. Then she drank, and it was good in her heart. She came (back) drunken, without having perceived mankind‖ (ANET, 11). Hence, humanity‘s deliverance. Loose parallels between the above Egyptian tale and the Genesis Flood saga are: [1] a G/god‘s decision to destroy humanity (≈ Gen 6.5-7, 11-13);50 [2] a liquid floods the land (Gen 7*);51 [3] humanity, in the end, is delivered from genocide (Gen 8.16ff.). Furthermore, in corroborating a snippet from The Primeval Establishment of Order there is another point of parallel between Gen 6-9* and Egyptian literature.52 Atum resolves, for impetus dissimilar to the Bible‘s, ―I shall destroy all that I have made, and this land will return into Nun, into the floodwaters, as (in) its first state‖ (ANET, 9). And this is exactly what is depicted as transpiring in the Flood account, save the and those within; with the bursting forth of, the abysmal waters (like Nun, the ―waters of chaos‖53), as well as heavy rainfall (Gen 7.11b), the order devolved into the primordial state described in Gen 1.2a (cf. Gen 8.1a)—a watery mass. Beyond themes and lexemes and their resemblance to Egyptian, A.S. Yahuda expounds a tantalizing theory regarding how the chronology of the Flood events is palpable only when the annual inundation of the Nile is in view.54 The connections are as follows:
50 The usurping plot devised by humanity in the Egyptian story may have a germane biblical counterpart in Gen 11.1-6. 51 Beer actually finds a connection with GE, it being a libation onboard the ark. 52 We cite the legend from ANET translated by John A. Wilson; see also Book of the Dead ch.175 (E.A.W. Budge, Book of the Dead, The Hieroglyphic Transcript of the Papyrus of ANI, the Translation into English and an Introduction [New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1968], 561-567, esp. 564). 53 ANET, 3 n.5. 54 Cf. J.J. Jenssen, ―The Day the Inundation Began,‖ JNES 46/2 (1987): 129-136. 199
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1. The duration of the flood extends over a full year, like the Nile flood. 2. The 150 days correspond to the period within the two limits between the onset of the rise of the Nile at the beginning of May, and the highest water level at the beginning of October, i.e. five months. 3. The recession of the flood begins after the expiry of 150 days and is carried out in three stages: first the water falls by 15 ells so that the highest mountain peaks
become visible on the first of the tenth month (Gen. 8, 5); then the water recedes further, till on the first of the first month of the second year it dries up from the
surface of the earth (8, 13) though the ground still remains moist; finally also this
moisture vanishes, and on the twenty-seventh of the second month (8, 14) complete dryness ensues. 4. It becomes evident that here also the sequence of months remains consonant with the customary usage of the Pentateuch, so that the first month is Nīsān and thus the flood actually begins in the second spring month just at the point when the rise of the Nile begins.55 A.S. Yahuda thus concludes, ―It is only by calculating the chronology of the flood on the basis of the Nile that it can be explained why the deluge took place in summer and not in winter, and only the beginning of the rise of the Nile in May provides us with the key to the solution of the question why the flood began in the second spring month.‖56 As a counter, we can agree with S.G.F. Brandon that if a flood tradition should arise out of a river impetus the Nile ―is generally an orderly river and its annual inundation is a gradual process; on the other hand, the Tigris and Euphrates are turbulent, and, when in spate, can cause sudden and widespread destruction.‖57 L.W. King posits the untamed Tigris ―could not have been more suitable soil for the growth of a Deluge story.‖58 Nevertheless, the Egyptian timeline of the flooding of the Nile is more approximate to the Biblical story, as opposed to the Sumerian account which records a seven day (and night) flood and the Babylonian record attesting a six day (and night) flood.59 Consequently, a dual influence may be postulated (see §3 below).
55 Language, 222; cf. 223-226. Yahuda also underscores the dissimilarities (ibid., 223). For a more detailed discussion see Jenssen, ―The Day the Inundation Began,‖ 129-136. 56 Language, 222; cf. 216-218. 57 S.G.F. Brandon, Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1963), 66. So King, Legends, 47-48, 95-96. 58 King, Legends, 97. 59 Cf. King, Legend, 78-79. For an Islamic folklore that postulates Noah‘s ark resting not on Ararat but in Egypt, see M.V. Seton-Williams, Egyptian Legends and Stories (New York: Fall River Press, 1999), 119- 120. 200
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.2 Moses‟ Ark (Exodus 2*)
A.S. Yahuda sees in Ex 2.3 ―no less than four Egyptian loan-words follow one another: hbft@Ii 60 61 62 = ḏbȝ.t; Pw@s = ṯwfy; )meg@O = ḳmȝ; and r)oy: = ἰrw (ἰtrw). These must have been so thoroughly current among the Hebrews in Egypt that they were no longer felt to be foreign 63 words.‖ Concerning the receptacle in particular, it is curious that it is not termed a )ne+e (Deut 26.2, 4; 28.5, 17), for instance, for this is also an Egyptian loanword denoting the popular rendition ―basket,‖64 specifically ―a receptacle for products of the soil.‖65 Also available was hb) twyn) (Job 9.26) or )mg-ylk (Isa 18.2), both of reed composition and the latter example is part of an Egyptian setting. Since Egyptian literature lacks a (known) Foundling story, it shall be beneficial instead to examine a text from its corpus with the same setting as Ex 2*: the Nile. In the Hymn to the Nile, said river is lauded with superlative hallmarks; the descriptors of particular interest here are the ironic ones in the face of the Exodus Foundling narrative. The Nile was typically seen as the source of all life for the land of Egypt; for example, the following phrases from the Hymn state: ―Hail to thee, O Nile, that issues from the earth and comes to keep Egypt alive!‖ (ANET, 372);66 ―‗O Nile, verdant art thou, who makest man and cattle to live!‘‖ (ANET, 373). Yet, in Ex 2* the life-giving Nile is ironically a death tool, namely from drowning (Ex 1.22). Notwithstanding, the Nile does actually have death purporting references in the Hymn also: ―ENTERING INTO THE UNDERWORLD AND COMING FORTH ABOVE, loving to come forth as a mystery‖ (ANET, 373); and ―The Nile has made his cavern in Thebes, and his name is no (longer) known in the underworld‖ (ANET, 373). The ―underworld‖ verbiage implies the depths or source of the Nile is comparable with Nun in that it does possess (or has possessed) chaotic and chthonic qualities67—and yet (ironically again), ―Nun itself possesses the potentiality of producing creative emanations from itself.‖68 Consequently, both life and
60 Cf. Lambdin, ―Egyptian Loan Words,‖ 153. 61 Cf. Lambdin, ―Egyptian Loan Words,‖ 149. 62 Cf. Lambdin, ―Egyptian Loan Words,‖ 151. 63 Yahuda, Language, 265. 64 Lambdin, ―Egyptian Loan Words,‖ 151. 65 BDB, 380. 66 John A. Wilson, in an opening stanza, interprets the Nile flooding ―in order to keep every kid alive‖ (ANET, 372). This datum would have potential significance for Ex 2*. However, in a footnote (ANET, 372 n.2) he disclaims ―extant texts [read] ib ‗kid,‘ but the original may have had ibw ‗thirsty one.‘‖ Indeed, Miriam Lichtheim (Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol.1: The Old and Middle Kingdom [Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California Press, 1973], 205), for example, opts for the latter translation. 67 See Dirk Van der Plas, De Hymne aan de Overstroming van de Nijl (= L‟Hymne à la Crue du Nil) (Ph.D. diss.: Utrecht, 1980), 103-107, 122-123. Cf. Mwht of the Reed Sea in Ex 15*, also a hymn (ch.5). 68 Brandon, Creation Legends, 63. Cf. Ragnhild Bjerre Finnestad, ―Ptah, Creator of the Gods: Reconsideration of the Ptah Section of the Denkmal,‖ Numen 23/2 (1976): 81-113. King (Legends, 122-123) 201
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
death overtones are attributed to the Nile; and, life and death reverberations are both integral to infant Moses as well. Additional songs were sung at Egyptian fests, festivals regarding or involving the Nile.69 One such festival of particular import for our purpose is the fest in the Thebean area (Karnak and Luxor, particularly), called Opet.70 C. Campbell has interpreted the Egyptian hieroglyphics etched into the temple walls at Luxor, each of the four walls conveying different cultural stories and customs; most intriguing here is the coronation ceremony transcribed on the south wall.71 Campbell relates the following overview: The celebration consisted in transporting the image of the god Amon-Ra in his shrine within his sacred boat, along with the boats of Mut, Khonsu, and the king, by water on barques to Luxor Temple, where they were solemnly installed in their several sanctuaries; and after many offerings were made and high festivals held, the sacred boats with their images were transported down-stream back to Karnak, and deposited in their sanctuaries there, with similar offerings, feastings, and rejoicing.72 The penultimate ritual before return to Karnak, more specifically, involves the king offering ―libations and gifts to the sacred boats‖ including the great boat of Amon-Ra on its stand.73 Thence: ―The sacred boats are now placed, with their stands, on the barques in the river, and the procession on land again begins. On the upper register is the great barge of Mut, on which, amidships, stands the shrine containing the sacred boat with the image of the goddess within.‖74 In fact, these small receptacles serve as housing for idols not only of Mut but also
states: ―The primaeval [sic] waters are originally the source of life, not of destruction, and it is in them that the gods are born… The change in the Babylonian conception was obviously introduced by the combination of the Dragon myth with that of Creation, a combination that in Egypt would never have been justified by the gentle Nile.‖ 69 Cf. Kurt Sethe, ―Die beiden alters Lieder von der Trinkstatte in den Darstellungen des Luksorfestzuges,‖ Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 64/1 (1929): 1-5. 70 Helen Jacquet-Gordon, (―The Festival on Which Amun Went out to the Treasury‖ in Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian epigraphy and history in memory of William J. Murnane [eds. P.J. Brand and L. Cooper; Leiden: Brill, 2009], 121) states: ―Festivals during which the bark of Amun was carried out of his temple of Karnak in order to visit neighboring sanctuaries played a considerable role in the annual religious calendar at Thebes from the beginning of the New Kingdom onward. The best known of these outings are those which conducted the god southwards from Karnak towards the temple of Luxor on the festival of Opet…‖ Jacquet-Gordon detects this festival originating in at least the 18th Dynasty (ibid.); cf. Yahuda, Language, 263. 71 Colin Campbell, The Miraculous Birth of King Amon-Hotep III and other Egyptian Studies (London: Oliver and Boyd, 1912), 18. 72 Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 100. For more detail see Walther Wolf, Das schöne Fest von Opet: die Festzugsdarstellung im grossen Säulengange des Tempels von Luksor (Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin-Expedition, 5; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs‘sche Buchhandlung, 1931). 73 Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 112-113. For more detailed inscriptions on Amon at Karnak and Luxor, see James Henry Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, vol.2 (New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), 13, 101, 147, 357-358, 359; idem, Ancient Records of Egypt, vol.3 (New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962), 94. 74 Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 114. For more detailed inscriptions on Mut at Karnak and Luxor, see Breasted, Ancient Records, vol.2, 101, 146, 147. 202
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
for ones in the image of Amun.75 Amun-Ra and Mut are the father and mother sovereign deity of the Egyptian pantheon, respectively; Amun is the sun god that brings forth light and life (creator), and Mut was considered to be the eye of Ra, the solar goddess who both punished and protected the inhabitants of Egypt.76 While individual words/hieroglyphs cannot be discerned from the illustrations provided in Campbell‘s monograph (nor is a lexical cataloguing his purpose), Yahuda is convinced that the lexeme of the object under analysis is ḏbȝ.t. For, in addition to coffin (Sarg) being the standard translation of Egyptian ḏbȝ.t, another lexicon entry is shrine (Schrein)—even specifically a shrine for a god (Götterschrein).77 Thus, Yahuda argues that in Ex 2.3, 5 ―ḏbȝ.t is used here in its real meaning of coffer, chest, holy shrine, coffin. Such a chest generally had the form of a divine shrine (Naos), and served as housing for images of gods which were dedicated to the temples.‖78 A wooden ḏbȝ.t, as in the sense of a holy shrine, was ―in the form of a longish chest with a small door in the upper portion of the front for statues of gods about the size of a child.‖79 Convinced that the foregoing coronary ritual is the background setting of Ex 2.1-10 Yahuda reconstructs the events of said text in such a light. Jochebed ―placed the infant in a chest which was exactly in the form used for enshrining images of gods… Her hope was that the princess would, at the first glance, suppose it to be a chest containing the image of a god, that had fallen into the river and drifted ashore, and that she would have it rescued forthwith.‖80 If this was the case, i.e. the subtext of the compositor‘s intentions, then the emotional reaction of the Egyptian princess in Ex 2* becomes more vivid—her compassion sourced out of perplexity and dismay that a living child was within the Götterschrein!81
75 Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 121-122: ―The small shrine near the bow of the barge, and outside of the great shrine, in which stood the sacred boat, no doubt contained an image of Amon to which the king is burning incense, for above the shrine are the remains of the titles of Amon-Ra and his promises to the king of ‗joy of heart, etc.‘‖ 76 Much is known of Amun-Ra. For more on Mut and her patronage in the Theban area (which includes Karnak and Luxor), see Christopher B. Hays, Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah (FAT, 79; Tübigen: Mohr Seibeck, 2011), 294-303; idem, ―The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1-22,‖ VT 60/2 (2010): 218-227; J.A. Wilson, ―The Theban Tomb (No. 409) of Si-Mut, Called Kiki,‖ JNES 29/3 (1970): 187-192; Geraldine Pinch, Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: University Press, 2002), 168-169. 77 Erman and Grapow, Wörterbuch, 5, 561. 78 Yahuda, Language, 262. See further Günther Roeder, Naos: Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1914). 79 Yahuda, Language, 262. Of course, the Exodus —which was child-sized—did have to be opened (√xtp; 2.6a) by the princess, hence a germane size and composition. 80 Yahuda, Language, 263. 81 For the practice of placing the umbilical cord of a newborn in a small, rectangular box see E.A. Wallis Budge, ―Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, vol. I (New York: G.P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1911), 331. Cf. also S.G.F. Brandon, ―A Problem of the Osirian Judgment of the Dead,‖ Numen 5 (1958): 110-113. 203
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Instead of an idol of the king/father god (Amun-Ra) or the queen/mother goddess there was a living baby who had been exposed by his father and mother. Thence, the Egyptian princess became like Mut unto the infant (even as the Pharaoh was like unto Amun).82 Yahuda‘s hypothesis can be tested by more closely examining the nature of the Nile‘s inundation. The Opet festival took place near the end of the first month (Thoth) of the flooding season.83 Now it was the beginning of the second month when the Nile would begin to rise noticeably.84 For efficacy, then, the return trip downstream coincided with the terminal stages of the Opet festival when the Nile coursed at its fastest rate. H. Jacquet-Gordon explicates: ―The cult, very widely celebrated in the Theban area during the Ramesside period, was particularly important on the west bank.‖85 This has provocative correspondences to the setting of Ex 2*. The Hebrews resided in the Thebean area (Karnak and Luxor being within that region), specifically in Goshen which is to the west of the Nile (Gen 47.6 [v.11])—during the reign of Ramesses II. In addition, the reeds, within which the Exodus is lodged, are at their most numerous and thickest consistency when the Nile is at its highest, i.e. at the peak of the flooding season.86 Consequently, Yahuda‘s hypothesis is feasible and commends itself for approval. It is quite likely, therefore, that the Egyptian princess of the Ex 2* story happened upon—so she thought (and this is evidenced by the author/compositor‘s word choice, hbt)—a Götterschrein, presumably of the goddess Mut or the god Amun-Ra.87 Even so, there may be another Egyptian cultural narrative melded together with the above that is in nP‘s mindset in the crafting of Ex 2*. In the Pyramid Texts mention is made of an ascension myth. The religious ritual surrounding the death of the King of Egypt is thus depicted. Since the King/Pharaoh was considered divine—even the son of Ra—his journey to the solar hereafter on a barque was a
82 In fact, Mut means mother, and it is especially curious is Mut‘s breast milk is understood as the nectar of the king of Egypt; see Pinch, Egyptian Mythology, 168-169. 83 This is an average estimated time; for, H. Jacquet-Gordon (―Festival‖) notes there are variations between ―the 26th day of the first month of the inundation season‖ (121) and ―the 28th and 29th of Thoth, the first month of the inundation season‖ (123). 84 See Yahuda, Language, 222 as quoted in 2.1 above. Cf. also Budge, The Nile (10th ed.; London: Cook & Son, 1907), 161: ―In April the heavy rains near Lâdô force down the green water of the swamps, and about April 15 the Nile has begun to rise at this place; this rise is felt at Kharṭûm about May 20, and at Aswân about June 10, and the green water announcing this rise is seen in Cairo about June 20.‖ 85 ―The Festival,‖ 123. 86 See ch.3 1.1. It has been argued in the previous chapter that the mother of Moses wanted the receptacle stationary, camouflaged, and hidden. 87 Again, Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 112-113. See above and below. 204
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
return trip.88 A reed-float or boat, measuring ―seven hundred and seventy cubits long,‖ ferries the pharaoh across the river to the Field of Rushes, which is effectively the realm of the blessed.89 ―The celestial crossing was of course symbolic of change and transformation‖ says W.M. Davis, and ―was most likely parallel to the crossing of the coffin over the Nile‖ according to texts.90 Therefore, ―it appears that the river itself has is a symbol or agent of transformation.‖91 Even for the noble, the funerary ritual took this semblance.92 Like the shrines (on the stands) within the barques for the Opet festival, the funeral procession entailed a ―funeral barge…a vessel with high ends in imitation of a bound reed boat‖ ―carrying the coffin‖;93 the passage across the river (or lake) was one stage of the coffin/shrine‘s procession which originated from the house of the deceased and ended at the mountain of the necropolis.94 Additionally, during the Old Kingdom there were customary kites, i.e. female mourning attendants, who accompanied the (one within the) coffin at the funeral; these ―kites were also associated with Osiris, and it is likely that one stood for Isis and the other for Nephthys… it is Osiris who ascended, and it is significant that his wife and sister were personified in an earthly enactment (?) or ritual.‖95 The connection of the mother and sister, specifically, of the one occupying the coffin in Egyptian mortuary ritual and the Hebrew women in Ex 2.1-10 is poignant. The ―coffin‖
(hbt) in the Nile has the mother and sister of the ―deceased‖ orbiting around it; of course, ironical, paradoxical, and even polemical messages pulse from the Biblical text with this Egyptian custom (and others) in the contextual backdrop, for infant Moses is really alive in a life preserving receptacle. Another parallel involves the mother and sister kites attending the King of Egypt, while Moses will essentially rule as King over the Israelites.96
88 Davis, ―The Ascension-Myth in the Pyramid Texts,‖ JNES 36/3 (1977): 165-166. Cf. Pinch, Egyptian Mythology, 143: ―Each king of Egypt was acclaimed as a ‗living Horus.‘‖ 89 Whitney M. Davis, ―Ascension-Myth,‖ 174. Cf. also Edwin Murphy, trans. Diodorus Siculus: Diodorus On Egypt (Book I of Diodorus Siculus‟ Historical Library; Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 1985), 126-127 (§96[b]). 90 Davis, ―Ascension-Myth,‖ 176 (177 par.2). 91 Davis, ―Ascension-Myth,‖ 177. Emphasis hers. 92 John A. Wilson, ―Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom,‖ JNES 3/4 (1944): 201-218. 93 Wilson, ―Funeral Services,‖ 206. 94 Wilson, ―Funeral Services,‖ 208-209. 95 Davis, ―Ascension-Myth,‖ 176; so Wilson, ―Funeral Services,‖ 204. Furthermore, Davis states, ―it is possible that in the crossing of the Nile the wife and sister of the deceased (ritually or vicariously) aided in the ferrying of the coffin, parallel to the actions of Isis and Nephthys in the sky‖ (ibid., 176-177). The Legend of Osiris and Isis shall be developed in ch.6. 96 He is facetiously called ―prince‖ (Ex 2.14; Num 16.13), as well as called ―judge‖ (Ex 18.13) and ―prophet‖ (Deut 18.15). 205
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Returning to the topic of the Field of Rushes or Reeds, the post-mortem journey through it is conceived as the conduit to the blessed abode and the process by which the deceased is purified for the afterlife.97 The Field of Rushes/Reeds is actually alternatively called in the Pyramid Texts the Sea of Reeds, or Reed Sea.98 The Reed Sea is, of course, the setting of Ex 14 and mentioned in Ex 15* as well; and J.R. Towers believes ―it is not unlikely that this term in Hebrew, Pw@s-MyA, ‗sea of reeds,‘ was used originally in a metaphorical sense…in Exod. 15:4‖99—that is, connoting the purification and ascension motifs described in the Pyramid Texts. For this reason, among other, will Ex 15* be examined in the next chapter, and the theological ramifications of the Field of Reeds, the coffin, etc. shall be treated in the subsequent one. 2.3 The Arks of Noah and Moses vs. The Arks of Utnapistim and Sargon: Dual Analysis In 1.4 above the biblical arks were synthetically analysed with the Akkadian ones. Here, in view of Egyptian language and literature, the biblical and Akkadian arks shall be contrasted. Actually, the vessels of the infants (Moses and Sargon) are nearly identical, albeit the larger crafts are quite diverse. Utnapishtim‘s ark is cubical; Noah‘s is rectangular parallelepiped, or quadrectagular.100 The Akkadian ark is seven-storied; the Hebrew ark is three-tiered. The Mesopotamian ark presumably possesses a steer and ruder, since one passenger is a boatman (GE XI 69); the biblical ark has none of these features. The contents of both the arks, furthermore, while each is comprised of persons, animals, and supplies, are greatly disparate in number, genus, and items (cf. ch.2 2.3.1.3). Ultimately, the vessels of Genesis and Exodus are different than the vessels under examination in Akkadian literature in that the former are, obviously, identical in terminology (while the latter are not), —which is in fact Egyptian in origin.
* * * Excursus: Coptic Tradition and Greek Rescension Coptic, the language birthed at the end of the second century CE in Egypt, is a recension of Egyptian (via Demotic). ―Surviving texts in Sahidic [Coptic] include,‖ expounds T.O. Lambdin, ―in addition to the New Testament and a large portion of the Old, a considerable corpus of Church literature, and some remnants of secular literature, nearly all of which is
97 John Roberts Towers, ―The Red Sea,‖ JNES 18/2 (1959): 152; Davis, ―Ascension-Myth,‖ 163-165. 98 Towers, ―The Red Sea,‖ 151. 99 Towers, ―The Red Sea,‖ 151. 100 Because the bottom two-thirds of the Babylonian boat was submerged in the water (GE XI 79), what appears above water is comparable to the biblical ark‘s shape: quadrectangular. 206
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
translated from Greek.‖101 For our purposes, the Egyptian word in question is retained, albeit altered, in Coptic. The Egyptian noun ḏbȝ.t morphs in a few different ways in Coptic.102 One set of etymological recension is Coptic‘s T/qba/e which is a different noun (―finger‖), a verb (―to seal‖), and a nominal (―10,000‖) depending on context;103 this all comes from the hieroglyph what looks like a finger (the instrument of sealing) and means the aforesaid nominal (). Alternatively spelt teibe or thhbe strictly means ―finger.‖104 th(h)be as ―finger‖105 occurs in The Apocryphon of John (16.10, 11; 17.4, 5, 13, 14, 27, 28), The Hypostasis of the Archons (94.29), The Interpretation of Knowledge (18.30), Trimorphic Protennoia (43.2, 3), and On the Origin of the World (104.4). thhbe and still other homonym variations (Taibe, thbe) are cognates meaning ―chest, coffin.‖106 thhbe, or any variation thereof, as ―chest‖ or ―coffin‖ is utilized nowhere in the Gnostic writings though. Among the Nag Hammadi scriptures which recount some form of Noah and the Flood (Moses‘ infancy account is nowhere related) the ―ark‖ is uniformly rendered as K/2ibwtos. Then (to/te) god will rest from his wrath. And he will cast his power upon the waters, and [he will] give power to his sons and their wives by means of the ark (kibwto/j [Kibwtos])… And the god will say to Noah—whom the generations (genea/) will call Deucalion—: ‗Behold, I have protected
[Noah] preached piety (eu0se/beia) for one hundred and twenty years. And no one listened to him. And he made a wooden ark (kibwto/j [2ibwtos]), and he whom he had found entered it. And the flood (kataklusmo/j) took place. And thus Noah was saved with his sons. For if [indeed]
101 Lambdin, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic (Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1982), viii. See also idem, ―Egypt: Its Language and Literature‖ in The Bible and the Ancient Near East (ed. G.E. Wright; Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1961), 282-283. 102 See Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache, 6 (Berlin: Akademie–Verlag, 1971), 232. 103 Antonio Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 307 (41, [42] 44, 46, 47, 71, 255). 104 Loprieno, Ancient Egyptian, 48; Erman and Grapow, Wörterbuch, 5, 562. 105 Michael Waldstein and Frederik Wisse, eds., The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2 (NHS, 33; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995), 222. Or ―toe‖ (ibid., 222). 106 Erman and Grapow, Wörterbuch, 5, 561; Lambdin, Sahidic Coptic, 279. Interestingly, Lambdin lists ―pouch, pocket‖ as cognates of the same (ibid., 279). 107 Douglas M. Parrott, Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (NHS, 11; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979), 164/165. 207
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
meant for man to enter, then the water of the flood (kataklusmo/j) would not have come. (The Concept of Our Great Power, 38.26–39.6a)108
But when the ruler of the forces came to know of their decision, he said to Noah, ―Make yourself an ark [Kibwtos] from some wood that does not rot and hide in it…‖ Then Orea came to him wanting to board the ark [Kibwtos]. And when he would not let her, she blew upon the ark [Kibwtos] and caused it to be consumed by fire. Again he made the ark [Kibwtos], for a second time. (The Hypostasis of the Archons, 92.9- 13)109
This ark [2ibwtos] will be [their] salvation when the flood of water surges over them. (Gospel According to Philip, 84.34b–85.1)110
It is not as (kata/) Moses said, ―They hid in an ark (kibwto/j [K/2ibwtos])…‖ (The Apocryphon of John, III.16-17/BG.16-17/II.16-17)111
Kibwtos (or any variation thereof) is not actually originally a Coptic word but a transliterated loanword from, Greek‘s kibwto/j.112 Indeed, Coptic has ―generously supplemented the native lexicon with many more borrowings from Greek.‖113 This phenomenon is natural since Greek was the lingua franca of the known-world well before the inception of the Coptic language; moreover, the Greek Pentateuch had been circulating throughout Egypt, and deposited in the Ptolemaic library in Alexandria, since 281 BCE (see further below).114 Indeed, in accordance with the Greek witness, the Coptic Genesis terms the vessel Kibwtos,115 and the Coptic Exodus calls the receptacle a qhbi116 after qi=bij.
108 Parrott, Nag Hammadi Codices, 300/301-302/303. 109 Bentley Layton, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7, vol.1 (NHS, 20; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989), 248/249. 110 Layton, Nag Hammadi Codex, 210/211. 111 Waldstein and Wisse, The Apocryphon of John, 162/163. 112 Cf. Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ―Biblical Narrative in Gnostic Revision: The Story of Noah and the Flood in Classic Gnostic Mythology‖ in Interpretations of the Flood (TBN, 1; eds. F.G. Martinez and G.P. Luttikhuizen; Leiden: Brill, 1999), 110. 113 Lambdin, Sahidic Coptic, vii. 114 Nina L. Collins, The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (VTS, 82; Leiden: Brill, 2000), 181, et passim; cf. Gmirkin (Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch [LHBOTS, 433 {Copenhagen International Series, 15}; New York: T&T Clark, 2006], 249, et passim) who favours 273-272 BCE. 115 Melvin K.H. Peters, ed., Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch, vol.1 Genesis (SBLSCS, 19; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1985), 16-22. The Coptic recension has two additional occurrences of the craft in question over against MT‘s; in Gen 6.15 and 7.16 Coptic makes explicit reference to MT‘s indirect object usage. Cf. Layton, A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahidic Dialect (2nd ed.; Porta Linguarum Orientalium, 20; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004), 172 (§214). 208
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Yet the question still remains: Why was the Hebrew lexical nexus of Noah and
Moses‘ receptacles (hbt) not retained with a Greek equivalency (say, kibwto/j) in the Septuagint?117 Could the Greek translators want to agree (for whatever reason) with the Akkadian/Babylonian accounts where kibwto/j is naturally ―boat‖ (|| Akk. elippu) and qi=bij is simply a ―basket‖ (|| Akk. qup-pi)? Or perhaps different methods of translation by different translators where undertaken in Genesis and Exodus which obscured the Hebrew (loanword) lexical nexus.118 As to translation technique, it is maintained by both E. Tov and G.B. Caird that qi=bij serves as an example of an Egyptian loanword.119 This classification is in distinction to homo(eo)phony,120 the case where a foreign word equivalent to the term in question also resembles its sound. When comparing hbt and qi=bij, of the three consonants one is 121 (essentially) identical (b–b), one is similar (t–q), and one is entirely diverse (h–j)—still, with (basically) half a phonetic resemblance this is not enough to classify as a homophony.122 Consequently, ―the resemblance in sound is often not easily recognizable‖ in loanwords; sometimes ―the translators probably were influenced more by the naturalness of the equivalence than by the resemblance in sound.‖123 Such is the case here; and this leads (us) to an interpretive deduction: If there was not a term of approximate equivalence in meaning that also sounded similar (homophony) to hbt, then another term was utilized which did more accurately describe the object in question.124 Therefore, qi=bij was not selected because it
116 Melvin K.H. Peters, ed., Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch, vol.2 Exodus (SBLSCS, 22; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986), 3. 117 Theodotus does in Exodus translate to kibwto/j; see John William Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus (SBLSCS, 30; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990), 13. 118 E. Tov poses a provocative question, which is in the following title: ―Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?‖ in De Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday (eds., A. Pietersma and C. Cox; Benben Publications, 1984), 53-70. Although, it does not have particular bearing here in this situation. 119 Emanuel Tov, ―Loan-words, Homophony and Transliteration in the Septuagint,‖ Bib 60/3 (1979): 222; G.B. Caird, ―Homoeophony in the Septuagint‖ in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity (eds. R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs; Leiden: Brill, 1976), 79. 120 Tov uses the shorter form while Caird the longer (ibid.); hereafter we shall use the short form. 121 We realize the soft pronunciation of the bêt sounds more like a v, which always takes. 122 With the vowels in the picture there is even more disharmony. 123 Tov, ―Loan-words,‖ 222. J.A. Beck also speaks of ―lexical equivalents‖ being a major translation technique, viz. ―literalness‖ (John A. Beck, Translators as Storytellers: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique [Studies in Biblical Literature, 25; New York: Peter Lang, 2000], 18). If the term in question in Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* were not divergent in the LXX, then it would be a case of ―concordance‖ which is ―when a word in the source document is translated in each of its occurrences with the same word in the receptor document‖ (ibid., 18). 124 Tov (―Loan-words,‖ 218) relates how loanwords ―were subsequently used as natural equivalents of their Hebrew counterparts‖ (emphasis his). 209
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
sounds similar to hbt, rather qi=bij has been selected because it bore more of a resemblance in appearance, function, and/or meaning to what was perceived as the original intent of hbt. G.B. Caird maintains, more specifically, that qi=bij is an Egyptian loanword ―to both Hebrew and Greek.‖125 That qi=bij is not native to Greek is evidenced by its only occurrences employed in the Moses Infancy Story (Ex 2.3, 5, 6)—and nowhere else. Kibwto/j is different in this regard; it is native to Greek and is therefore used throughout the translation (LXX) of the Law,126 the Prophets,127 the Writings,128 as well as the Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha,129 and is also written throughout the New Testament,130 the Patristics,131 and used amongst various historians.132 Thus, regardless of the size of the chest/box (seismic in Genesis and vastly smaller everywhere else) or its use for sacred (e.g., the ark of the covenant [Ex 25]) or common (e.g., a money box [2 Kgs 12.10, 11 {MT}]) purposes, kibwto/j is the preferred translation for both Nwr) and hbt (except in Ex 2*). The choice of nomenclature (kibwto/j) throughout the LXX, henceforth, again appears to be based chiefly upon the appearance or aesthetics of the receptacle.133 For example, the ark of the covenant looks like (and in fact is) a box/chest; the ocular representation of the money receptacle at the Temple has the appearance (and in fact is) a box/chest. Conversely, the vessel in Ex 2* is a qi=bij because, for the LXX translator(s), the object has the aesthetics of a basket over against a box/chest; and inversely, in the case of Gen 6-9* kibwto/j was utilized because the craft appears (based on its description) to be
125 G.B. Caird, ―Homoeophony,‖ 79. 126 Gen 6.14x2, 15x2, 16x2, 18, 19; 7.1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23; 8.1, 4, 6, 9x2, 10, 13, 16, 19; 9.10, 18; Ex 25.10, 14x2, 15, 16, 21x2, 22; 26.33, 34; 30.6, 26; 31.7; 35.12; 38.5, 11; 39.14; 40.3x2, 5, 20x2, 21x2; Lev 16.2; Num 3.31; 4.5; 7.89; 10.33, 34; 14.44; Deut 10.1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9; 31.9, 25, 26. 127 Jer 3.16. 128 Josh 3.3, 6x2, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15x2, 17; 4.7, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18; 6.8, 9, 11, 12, 13; 9.2x2; 24.33; Jdg 20.27; 1 Sam 3.3; 4.3, 4x2, 5, 6, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22; 5.1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8x3, 10x3, 11x2; 6.1, 2, 3, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21; 7.1, 2; 2 Sam 6.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17; 7.2; 11.11; 15:24, 25, 29 ; 1 Kgs 2.26; 3.15; 6.19; 8:1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 21; 2 Kgs 12.10, 11; 1 Chron 6.16; 13.3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14; 15.1, 2, 3, 12, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29; 16:1, 4, 6, 37; 17:1; 22:19; 28:2, 18; 2 Chron 1.4; 5.2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10; 6.11, 41; 8.11; 35.3; Ps 131.8. 129 Jda 20.27; 1 Es 1.3, 51; 2 Macc 2.4, 5; 4 Macc 15.31 / GrBar 4.11; ParJer 7.8; JosAs 10.9; 18.3. 130 Mt 24.38; Lk 17.27; Heb 9.4; 11.7; 1 Pet 3.20; Rev 11.19. 131 Justin the Martyr in Dialogue, Theoh.Ant. 3,19; cf. also SibOr 1,266 (DBAG, 544). 132 See C. John Collins, ―Noah, Deucalion, and the New Testament,‖ Bib 93/3 (2012): 403-426. Josephus, Apollodrus, and others also frequently use la/rnac, even of Noah‘s vessel. Cf. Marguerite Harl, ―Le Nom de ‗L‘arche‘ de Noe dans La Septante: Les choix lexicaux des traducteurs alexandrins, indices d‘interpretations théologiques?‖ in ALECANDRIA: Hellénisme, judaïsme et christianisme à Alexandrie: Mélanges Claude Mondésert, S.J. (Paris: Cerf, 1987), 41. 133 Again, Tov, ―Loan-words,‖ 222. Benjamin G. Wright III (―Noah and the Flood in the Septuagint‖ in Noah and His Book(s) [SBLEJIL, 28; eds. M.E. Stone, A. Amihay, and V. Hillel; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2010], 137) quotes Robert Hiebert as saying that the Greek Genesis is a ―‗strict, quantitative representation of its source text,‘‖ the MT. 210
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
more box/chest-like, as opposed to ship-like.134 Had the LXX translators wanted to retain the lexical nexus between the Flood and Foundling accounts—and even wanted the (ironic) lexeme denoting ―coffin‖—then surely they could have opted for soro/j, the terminology used in Gen 50.26 for Joseph‘s coffin or bier.135 But this is not the case. As a result of the foregoing linguistic analysis, a few explanations exist as to the lexical disjunction in the LXX in contradistinction to the lexical mirroring in MT. First, it could be the simple case whereby vocabulary in the Flood and Foundling stories were translated with the most appropriate word equivalents known to the translators, whether native to Greek (kibwto/j) or not (qi=bij); and, as a consequence of basing translation of objects on a criteria of physical comparability and, perhaps, the lack of diachronic awareness that the lexical nexus in MT was being ruptured, the LXX of Genesis and Exodus is presented to its readers as a best-intentioned, faithful translation regardless of the lexemic disconnect concerning the vessel in both aforesaid accounts. A second explanation could at first be like the scenario just expounded, although instead of ignorance regarding the terminological severing in this option the translators were aware of the severed inter-textual term and yet the LXX textus receptus is nonetheless neither depreciated from nor inferior to the MT. Subset to this second possibility is a range of motives and convictions as to why a lexemic disconnection is copasetic. On one end of the spectrum, so to speak, a motive for choosing different (translational) words for the vessels in the Flood and Foundling narratives is to improve upon the term in each account. On the other end of the spectrum, a motive to alter the linguistic connection of a key-term may be to conceal the imports and portents of the lexical nexus. Regarding this last motive of the second explanatory option, it may be asked: Did the translators of the Torah possess resistant predilections to the Egyptian influence upon the Hebrew culture—which manifests itself in an Egyptian loanword (hbt) present in and tying together Gen 6-9* and Ex 2*? What brings this translation issue to a crescendo is the social and political context in which the LXX is birthed. S. Olofsson describes the situation well: ―The largest colony of Jews outside of Palestine was in Egypt. In metropolitan Alexandria, where many scholars
134 Whether that word choice be nau=j ([1 Sam 5.6] 1Kgs 9.26, 27; 10.11; 2 Chron 9.21; Prov 30.19; 31.14; Job 9.26) or ploi=on (Gen 49.13; Deut 28.68; Jdg 5.17; 2 Chron 8.18; 9.21; 20.36, 37; Ps 47.8; 103.26; 106.23; Job 40.31; Isa 2.6; 11.14; 18.1; 23.1, 10, 14; 33.21; 43.14; 60.9; Jon 1.3, 4, 5x2; Ezek 27.9, 25, 29; Dan 11.40). 135 Cf. the usage of soro/j in Job 31.22 and Lk 7.14 (a false cognate appears in 1 Chron 7.16). A coffin is naturally chest-shaped, which is why the MT reads in Gen 50.26 Nwr). 211
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
wish to place the translation process, probably almost half of the population in the mid-third century BC consisted of people of the Jewish heritage.‖136 Egyptian king Ptolemy was amassing one of the largest libraries in the Greco-Roman world, and a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah was to be one of those tomes. According to tradition, seventy-two (72) Jews did so in seventy-two (72) days and it was popularly called the LXX (70), after basically the number of translators, or the Septuagint.137 But the process of creating the Septuagint and how it was received is debated.138 N.L. Collins has argued against the popular hypothesis that the Septuagint was composed by learned Jews who, on their own volition and because of ignorance of the Hebrew language amongst the Hellenized Jewish population, translated the Bible into Greek to be relevant and hence survive in literary form. This logic, as Collins contends, has been a(n) (il)logical totality transfer of a previous model, where when during the exilic period the priests and scribes read the Law in Hebrew and the meturgeman would translate and commentate in Aramaic due to the language barrier.139 Instead, ―the Letter of Aristeas… describe[s] how a translation of the Pentateuch into Greek was brought about through the energy of the Greeks and despite the opposition of the Jews.‖140 ―If the earliest Greek bible was composed by Jewish translators working reluctantly in Alexandria in the third century BCE, for the benefit of the Greeks rather than the Jews,‖ argues Collins, ―then, the translation must be regarded primarily as a document in which, for the first time, the inner sanctum of
136 Staffan Olofsson, Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version (Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series, 57; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009), 90. 137 See e.g., Olofsson, Translation Technique, 89 (cf. 100-104). James K. Aitken (―The Significance of Rhetoric in the Greek Pentateuch‖ in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies [BZAW, 420; eds. J.K. Aitken, K.J. Dell, and B.A. Mastin; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011], 520), relates: The Septuagint translators might well have been comparable to the more skilled of the Egyptian bureaucratic scribes, having not achieved the highest level of education, but having acquired some rhetorical skills which were taught in the elementary levels of education. It is possible that in looking for a translator in the context of Ptolemaic Egypt, the most likely place to find one is among the scribal class of the Ptolemaic bureaucracy. And…such scribes had the competence to write with the same level of rhetorical technique as the Septuagint translators. 138 Olofsson, Translation Technique, 100-104; N.L. Collins. The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (VTS, 82. Leiden: Brill, 2000). 139 ―There is little doubt therefore that the Aramaic speaking Jews of Hellenistic Egypt in the early third century BCE, did not want or need a translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek‖ (N.L. Collins, Library in Alexandria, 181). 140 N.L. Collins, Library in Alexandria, 178. Furthermore, ―there is no indication at this stage in its history [281 BCE, time of compositional completion] that the translation was intended for religious use or that it was honoured in any way as divine. It was simply one book among many that were deposited in the library of Ptolemy II‖ (179). Contra Abraham Wasserstein and David J. Wasserstein (The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006], 60) who posit, ―The Baraitha as we find it in BT…has a plain meaning: it speaks about the Greek translation of the Hebrew text of the Pentateuch and it reflects a hospitable welcome to this translation.‖ 212
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Judaism was exposed to the curious, and possibly unfriendly gaze of the outside world.‖141 If Collins has struck the true impetus for the translation of the Hebrew Bible into the lingua franca, then (or regardless) this has bearing concerning the lexical discord between the vessel in the Flood and Foundling narratives in the Septuagint. The primary difficulty in interpreting the motive of translation technique is in the interconnection with the accuracy of the interpretation of its political environ; in other words, if the translation process was cooperative then the translation technique would be shaped accordingly, but if the translation process was coercive then it may have restriction on the usage of certain translation techniques. Olofsson warns against the exegete‘s theological biases projected onto the LXX translator, which is well heeded.142 He states, ―it is quite natural that the LXX translator‘s choice of equivalents deviates from what one would have expected in a modern translation, if one considers the situation of the translators. The nature of the original text, the translator‘s knowledge of Hebrew and the translation technique adopted can often give a plausible explanation to many for a modern interpreter astonishing renderings.‖143 J.K. Aiken advances how it ―might [be] suggest[ed] that the translators were…restrained by the translation technique adopted, perhaps chosen as the only model of translation they had than out of any particular agenda.‖144 Indeed, ―From a translation we cannot tell for sure if it reflects all that they [the LXX translators] had learnt at school, or whether it merely reflects all they were able to do within the confines of the translation discipline.‖145 Returning to the Greek translation of Exodus, it should be reiterated that qi=bij is a loanword whose source is Egyptian.146 Thus, the translator(s) of Ex 2* had before him (/them) a Hebrew text with verbiage coloured by the Egyptian backdrop of the story, especially hbt which is a word loaned from Egyptian. Now, that we have a Greek translation of Ex 2* which retains Egyptian terminology of the vessel, qi=bij, demonstrates a desired accuracy to the Hebrew text. For, there were/are words in the Hebrew vocabulary repertoire 147 which mean ―basket,‖ such as the general vessel (bwlk/a1ggoj), perhaps the standard
141 N.L. Collins, Library in Alexandria, 180. 142 Olofsson, Translation Technique, 25-26. 143 Olofsson, Translation Technique, 27. 144 Aitken, ―The Significance of Rhetoric,‖ 521. 145 Aitken, ―The Significance of Rhetoric,‖ 521. 146 Caird, ―Homoeophony,‖ 79. 147 Amos 8.1, 2. For bwlk as cage see Jer 5.27. For otherwise a1ggoj: Deut 23.26; 1 Kgs 17.10; Jer 19.11; Ezek 4.9 (Mt 13.48). 213
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
148 149 container ()n+/ka/rtalloj), and even a creel in an Egyptian context (ls/kanou=n); nevertheless, in order to mimic the Hebrew loanword (hbt) the LXX translator(s) of Ex 2* injected an Egyptian loanword into the newly Greek text (qi=bij)—all for the purpose, it can be surmised, of literary accuracy. In both the Hebrew and Greek text of Ex 2*, in other words, the donor of the word for the floating craft is Egyptian. In this rite, the Septuagint translator(s) of Ex 2* were faithful to their text, even striving for a technical term of near homophony (see above). It is natural, of course, that qi=bij is not used in the Gen 6-9 account, for, as previously discussed, the translation of hbt was on the preference of physical resemblance. The vessel in Exodus has the appearance of a basket, while the vessel in Genesis has the likeness of a (massive) box/chest. Noah‘s vessel is a kibwto/j not least because, like it, the ark (kibwto/j) of the covenant is also elaborately described and blueprinted (see ch.2 2.4.2.1.3).
Moreover, if we are correct that P originally termed Noah‘s vessel Nwr) before nP‘s redaction (see again ch.2 2.4.2.1.3; ch.3 2.4.3), then it stands to reason that the LXX translators penned kibwto/j in the Flood Narrative in order to regain the lexical coherence between it and the ark of the covenant—both being Priestly sacred structures. Consequently, if this is the case, the Septuagint translators did not recklessly sever a meaningful connection; instead, they were trying to preserve a previous lexical linkage.150 Notwithstanding, the hbt link in Gen and Exod does have a longevous tradition. In
151 the Dead Sea Scrolls, hbt features 14 times. Most occurrences are in contexts of Noah and the Flood (4Q252-254 = 4QcommGena-b, d; 4Q422 = 4QparaGen-Exod),152 but twice a b 153 hbt is transcribed in the events of Exod 2* (4QGen-Exod ; 4QExod ). Therefore, both
148 )n+: Deut 26.2, 4, 5; 28.17. ka/rtalloj: Deut 26.2, 4; 2 Kgs 10.7; Sir 11.30; Jer 6.9. The Hebrew word in 2 Kgs 10.7 that is translated ka/rtalloj is dwd, ―pot, jar‖ (BDB, 188). dwd is also found in Ps 81.7 and Jer 24.1, 2x2 which is otherwise translated ko/finoj (Ps 80.7 [MT 81.7]) or ka/laqoj (Jer 24.1, 2x2). 149 Gen 40.16, 17x2, 18. Note kanou=n specifically denotes a ―basket of reed‖ (LS, 874). Also Ex 29.3x2, 23, 32; Lev 8.2, 26, 31; Num 6.15, 17, 19; Jdg 6.9/Jda 6.19. 150 Cf. Harl, ―Le Nom, ‖ 15-43. 151 Zobel (TDOT 15:550) also reports fourteen (14) occurrences; however, he claims one (1) is in CD (TDOT 15:552), but this cannot be found. 152 George Brooke, et al., Qumran Cave 4 XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3 (Discoveries in the Judean Desert, XXII; Oxford: Clarendon Press 1996), 194, 210, 234-235); Harold Attridge, et al., (Qumran Cave 4 VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (Discoveries in the Judean Desert, XIII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 427). One fragment (of 4QparaGen-Exod) is too small to know exactly; it merely reads ―h]bth l)[.‖ But as Attridge, et al. (Qumran Cave 4 VIII, 427) notes: ―This phrase appears five times in Genesis 7 (vv 1, 7, 9, 13, 15).‖ 153 Eugene Ulrich and Frank Moore Cross, et al., Qumran Cave 4 VII: Genesis to Numbers (Discoveries in the Judean Desert, XII; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 19, 87). Contra Zobel (TDOT 15:552) who states that all hbt occurrences in the DSS are attributed to Gen 6-9. 214
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
lexical mirroring traditions persist: hbt in Gen 6-9* and Exod 2*, and kibwto/j in Gen 6-9* and Exod 25*ff.; and when taken together a triangular uniformity forms between the Genesis ark, the Exodus ark, and the ark of the covenant (see further ch.6). * * *
3. The Levant The Levant154 is the ―Mediterranean littoral between the mountains of Cilicia and the Sinai peninsula.‖155 The land of Israel (Ephraim/Samaria – Judah/Judea) lies approximately in the center of this span, thus constituting the crossroads to the north–south (and east–west) political, economic, and religious environs.156 C.H. Gordon relays how ―[t]he culture of the East Mediterranean absorbed the best that antiquity had to offer, embracing the Sumero- Akkadian heritage in the east and the Egyptian legacy in the west.‖157 We can expect no less from the Hebrew people. When it comes to literature, its sharing, borrowing, and influencing commingling in the Levant, the products would likely tend to be amalgamated, as a result. It is difficult, at times, to separate the influences of Egypt and Babylon upon the Hebrews; in other words, to parse out where Babylonian and Egyptian influences begins and ends is not always able to be administered with scalpel precision. L.W. King postures the problem well in saying, since Egypt lay nearer than Babylon to Palestine, and political and commercial intercourse was at least as close…Why then is it that the actual myths and legends of Egypt concerning the origin of the world and its civilization should have failed to impress the Hebrew mind, which, on the other hand, was so responsive to those of Babylon?158 Yahuda has explicated the Levant influence upon Biblical writers and their stories as likened to ―Babylonian stories having been transformed by grafting of Egyptian elements, on the original Babylonian stem‖159 This metaphor is helpful; it explains how the Hebrew writers of the Flood and Foundling narratives conformed the form, contents, and genre of each legend
154 ―‗Levant,‘ and Italian-derived word originating with traders from the medieval Italian city- states…mean[s] ‗the point where the sun rises,‘ and referred to the eastern Mediterranean‖ (William W. Harris, The Levant: a Fractured Mosaic [Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2003], 2). 155 Harris, The Levant, 1 (cf. xi). 156 Harris (The Levant, 1) speaks of this land mass as ―the crossroads‖, ―the land bridge‖ of the wider world. See further ibid., 3-5. 157 Cyrus H. Gordon, Ugarit and Minoan Crete: The Bearing of Their Texts on the Origins of Western Culture (New York: W.W. Norton, 1966), 152 158 King, Legends, 139. 159 Yahuda, Language, 205 (119). 215
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
according to Babylonian tradition, yet utilized vocabulary and imagery from the Egyptian culture. These amalgamated stories in Genesis and Exodus thus represent a mutual influence from the two large regimes to the north and south of their (native) locale. There are a few points of contact that are common between the Akkadian and Egyptian religious traditions, doctrines, and experiences which help to explain the linguistic and theological conceptual connotations of the Hebrew . These synthetic points of contact include: temple/shrine, New Year‘s festivals, and rebirth/renewal.160 3.1 Temple/Shrine It has been noted that once in the Babylonian record of Utnapishtim‘s flood the vessel is coined ekallu, a palace (GE XI 95). This single, poetic variant is illuminating. It can be said that ―the ark in the Gilgamesh epic was conceived along the lines of an ›ideal‹ ziggurat of seven stages.‖161 The Babylonian ark is thus pictured as a cultic/theological structure, or sanctuary.162 In the Egyptian context a cultic/theological vessel is also found positioned on the waters of a (river) flood. In religious festivals various Götterschrein, set on their stands, were toted up the Nile and floated down in barques. At the temples the king/pharaoh worshipped the gods and goddesses who bestow fertility and stability to his reign and the land and people of Egypt. The Hebrew people tell their history influenced by their Levantine setting accordingly. Their Flood story is greatly germane in form and content to that of Babylonia, yet the operative term (hbt) is Egyptian. Are the biblical arks temple/shrine-like? The word hbt first alerts readers to the possibility that there are cultic-theological connotations imbued in the biblical narratives, albeit faint. Noah does appear to take on trace priestly attributes at times throughout the Flood events, namely in being righteous (qydc) and building an altar and sacrificing (clean) animals to YHWH;163 similarly, Moses is a Levite and the Levites become the tribe of priests. The Genesis can be seen as a type of sanctuary, especially atop a mountain; and Moses
160 The coalescence of these themes are eruditiously treated by Steven W. Holloway in ―What Ship Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology,‖ ZAW 103 (1991): esp. 328-338. 161 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 341. 162 See Eleanor Follansbee, ―The Story of the Flood in the Light of Comparative Semitic Mythology‖ in The Flood Myth (ed. A. Dundes), 84. 163 Ironically, Noah is portrayed as priest-like by the non-priestly redactor; see Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 351, 353. Noah is also especially pictured as priestly in the Aramaic Levi Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls; see, Dorothy M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity (Early Judaism and Its Literature, 26; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2008), 177-178. 216
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
disembarks from the Exodus and eventually receives divine blueprints for the Tabernacle atop Mt. Sinai (Ex 26), just as Noah had received divine blueprints for the ark. Thus, the cultic aspects of temple or shrine that is clearly applied to the Babylonian and Egyptian vessels are received with subdued, though evident, reverberations in the biblical s (see further ch.6). 3.2 New Year‟s Festival In Babylonian culture, the akîtu, or New Year‘s, festival ―not only commemorates the creating of the world, but the ever-present principle of creation is redeemed from impending decay and re-introduced into the sacral community.‖164 Midway through this celebration the annual enthronement of Marduk is recited/re-enacted and the contents of Enuma Elish serve as the liturgy.165 This festival was inherited or adopted by many neighbouring people groups and cultures in the northern Levant, for example the Baal Cycle of Ugarit (see ch.5 2.3.1.5.2). There is a curious reference to the akîtu festival in GE, actually; during the building phase of the ship it is narrated, ―Bullocks I slaughtered for the [people], And I killed sheep every day. Must, red wine, oil, and white wine [I gave the] workmen [to drink], as though river water, That they might feast as on New Year‘s Day‖ or akîtu-festival (XI 70-74). In this story a New Year‘s Day allusion is at the cusp of the inundation (cf. Gen 8.13).166 In Egyptian culture, the southern Levant, there were also annual festivals at the New Year in spring. The New Year commenced with the start of the inundating Nile; actually, all cultic and cultural celebrations sources out of the annual flooding of the Nile—the mechanism of fertility, prosperity, and conviviality. The Opet festival is believed to have been an annual celebration for a large part of Egypt‘s New Kingdom era;167 here the pharaohs annually sacrificed to the high gods and goddesses of Egypt. The re-enactment celebration of the pharaoh‘s kingship in relationship to the cosmic order established by the gods is best seen in Sed-Festivals, or what Campbell calls, ―the Osirification of the king.‖168 ―At this festival the king comes out of an apartment called the sanctuary, then he ascends into a pavilion open
164 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 333. Cf. Sarna, Understanding Genesis (The Melton Research Center Series, vol.1; New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966), 7-8. 165 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 334; Sparks, ―Enūma Elish,‖ 632. 166 Holloway (―What Ship Goes There,‖ 346) states, ―Utnapishtim performed the first sacrifice in the new world on the first day of the primal New Year; [just as] Solomon dedicated his temple at the time of the autumn New Year (1 Reg 8,2)‖. 167 Jacquet-Gordon, ―Festival,‖ 121; Pinch, Egyptian Mythology, 90. Cf. Campbell (Miraculous Birth, 117) who interprets one inscription to read: ―‗Companies of the travellers,‘ records their acclamations of the king, who, they say, is ‗conducting the god Amon in his voyage to his seats in the Apts in his festival at the beginning of the year.‘ The last expression seems to indicate that the festival was held at the Egyptian New Year, probably at the first of the inundation.‖ 168 Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 89, et passim. 217
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
at the four sides, with four staircases leading up to it. Carrying the emblems of Osiris, he takes his seat on a throne, and turns to the four cardinal points in succession. …It is a kind of second enthronement.‖169 The Hebrews while not having New Year‘s festivals and/or annual enthronement ceremonies per se, do possess a version of this thematic complex in their scriptures. In Genesis the Flood is essentially finished on New Year‘s Day (Gen 8.13), which marks the re- establishment of order and renewal of life.170 In Exodus Jochebed sets her on the Nile near the beginning of the flood season, the New Year, which aligns with the annual Opet festival in Egypt (see above). The most explicit New Year‘s reference in the Hebrew Bible, however, is the Passover as defined and explicated by God in Exodus.171 According to Ex 12.15-16 the Passover is to commence on the first day of the first month; the first month is redefined by God as the current month—the month in which God liberates his people from the slavery and bondage in Egypt (cf. Lev 23.7; Deut 16.4). The Passover festival shall be seven days long, and it involves a feast, or sorts, a very specific menu for a particular didactic purpose (Ex 12). Further, the anticipated liberation that the original Passover celebrates culminates in Ex 15*.172 The matter of establishing a Hebrew New Year Day is not facile, though. J.D. Levenson points out that the Mishnah lists ―both Nisan 1 and Tishri 1 as New Year‘s Days‖,173 a spring and autumn date respectively. The former date coincides with Passover and the latter Rosh Hashanah (i.e. Booths); both these dates, furthermore, are accompanied
169 Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 81. ―Osiris is one with the giver of fertility, the Nile; and in the Sed- festival it is equally obvious that the king is the earthly embodiment of Osiris‖ (M.A. Murray, ―The Cult of the Drowned in Egypt,‖ ZÄS 51 [1913]: 131). 170 See Jon D. Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988), 73-76. Like Enuma Elish functions as the liturgy of the Babylonian New Year‘s festival, Paul Humbert opines Gen 1 (cf. Ps 104) also function as liturgy for the Hebrew New Year‘s festival (B.W. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives [OBT; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994], 210-211). 171 Sparks (―Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism,‖ JBL 126/4 (2007), 633-635) notes the comparability between the akîtu festival (especially days four and five) and P‘s Day of Atonement rite in Lev 16. 172 Levenson (Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 75) attests ―the Hebrew Passover is best seen as a New Year‘s festival…which serves as a charter myth for Passover, manifest[ing] the same pattern of a cosmogonic victory over lethal waters, the salvific appearance of dry land, and the construction of the sanctuary. The pattern is most vivid in the great hymn that Moses and Israel sing after their successful passage through the Sea of Reeds.‖ 173 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 71. Sparks (―Enūma Elish,‖ 632) mentions how also ―two Akītus were observed in first-millennium Babylon, a primary New Year festival during Nisanu (month 1) and another during Tashrītu (month 7).‖ 218
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
with a weeklong festival, which corresponds to P‘s seven day creation account.174 Levenson also enumerates: In spite of the clear Babylonian practice of a spring akītu, there is Mesopotamian evidence to support this supposition. In origin, the akītu was a fall festival, and in Ur it was celebrated twice yearly, in the spring and the fall, until the neo-Babylonian period. The practice of Ur is a striking anticipation of the Mishnaic law and a strong indication that the Mishnah is conservative here rather than innovative.175 Nevertheless, there is more evidence to suggest Nisan 1 as New Year‘s Day vis-à-vis how it interfaces with Levantine culture as well as the broad trajectory of Biblical narrative. On this point, ―the sanctuary in the wilderness was dedicated on the same day that the flood waters receded from the land of the new world.‖176 This imitates both the events in Gilgamesh, and the primordial hillock, emerging from Nun, of Egyptian culture.177 Furthermore, P is writing fresh out of exile whereupon the Jews were liberated from Babylonian captivity by Cyrus king of Persia. Biblical accounts make clear the time at which Cyrus released the Jews to return to their homeland (Transjordan) and were permitted to (re)build their temple: the first year of Cyrus‘ reign (2 Chron 36.22; Ezra 1.1; 5.13; 6.3). That the first year is explicitly stated numerous times in the Hebrew Bible underscores how the liberation of the Jews indicates a regime change and is as practical a New Year commencement as any event.178 As a consequence, P wrote of two fresh starts, Gen 6-9* and Ex (1-)15*, of the Hebrew people while also experiencing a fresh start (release from Babylonian exile)—all three events relate, albeit somewhat tenuously, to a concept of a New Year‘s fest; in addition, nP has literarily expanded the above texts with much the same motive (while certainly contributing other themes and factors). 3.3 Rebirth/Renewal The convergence of the above cultic themes results in a belief in and celebration of rebirth and renewal. In Akkadian tradition, there is a reference to the New Year festival (though not actually the time of the occasion) and then the flood transpires. In the postdiluvian era, Utnapishtim ascertains immortality by means of a plant (GE XI 278-279) and becomes a god- like figure. This is rebirth or renewal par excellence.179
174 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 72-73. 175 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 71-72. 176 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 334. 177 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 333. 178 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 353. 179 Cf. Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 344-345. 219
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
In Egyptian tradition, the annual flooding of the Nile produces a literal rebirth of fertility in vegetation and crops. The grateful by-product of a lush agricultural renewal in the land of Egypt was cultic festivals in which sacrifices were offered by the king of Egypt on behalf of all Egyptians to various gods/goddesses, celebrating their faithfulness to restore natural benevolence annually. Pharaoh and god-shrines floated up and down the newly regenerated Nile to worship at temples in Luxor and Karnak especially. Rebirth and renewal is thus evident. The Hebrew nation finds identity in cosmic and cataclysmic (re)creations too. Both Gen 6-9* and Ex 2-15* relay the renewal of a people, the rebirth of humanity in the first instance and the (re)birth of the people of God, the Israelites, in the second instance. The timeline of Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* with its emphasis of renewal of life essentially aligns with (the) New Year‘s Day (festival); furthermore, the ascendancy and reign of the LORD God is evident in Gen 9* and Ex 15.18 (cf. Ps 29.10).180 This foregoing, then, invites the interpretation of the Genesis and Exodus s as a type of temple or shrine. Consequently, there is also a cultic-religious renewal at work in the aforesaid narratives for the people of Israel.181
In summation, the Hebrews were for a long while located at the centre of the Levant with two predominate cultures at either side: Babylonia and Egypt; the Israelites, moreover, had been immigrants/exiles in both kingdoms at one time in their history, which naturally heightens the influence and permeations in regards to literature and religious formulation. The two biblical stories where hbt features finds analogous counterpart in Akkadian literature, yet the term derives from Egyptian customs and cultic practices; in addition, Ex 15* is germane to Levantine literature and cosmology. Lastly, when the Flood and Foundling texts (Gen 6-9*, Ex 2*) are viewed in relation to the Levantine cultures the religio-theological framework which emerges is the issue(s) of renewal/rebirth at or around the New Year‘s festival with a temple/shrine in context.
180 B.W. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, 225: ―The enthronement psalms are the product of the Jerusalem cult, which was a crucible in which Israel‘s ancient historical faith was blended with elements of Canaanite, Babylonian, and Egyptian mythology.‖ See also P.C. Craigie, ―Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition,‖ VT 22/2 (1972): 143-151. 181 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 352. 220
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER 5
TEBĀH VIS-À-VIS (EXODUS 15*)
Having exegetically examined tebāh in its two biblical contexts (chs.2 & 3), a linguistic study of the term‘s origin and its donor language was conducted. In that part (ch.4) it was concluded that the Hebrew writer(s) loaned hbt from Egyptian ḏbȝ.t, meaning ―coffin, coffer.‖ The cultural and cultic-theological bearing is the Götterschrein, a small chest containing an Egyptian god, which, on a designated festival (Opet), floated on barques up and down the Nile to and from key temples; and this cultic custom is congruous with the events in Ex 2* both in setting and object (tebāh). At this point in the study, we incorporate another Pentateuchal text into the complex: 1 Ex 15.1-21, the Song(s) at the Sea. While Ex 15* obviously does not contain the word hbt, it is a crucial text in the consideration of hbt for a few reasons. First, Ex 15* is in effect part two of Ex 2*: in both texts there are two bodies of water (Nile and Reed Sea) where death and deliverance is meted out with the sister of Moses prefiguring.2 Second and similarly, Ex 15* as the terminal part of the Ex 1-15* literary block is set in the Egyptian milieu, from whence hbt derives. Third, Ex 15* forms with Ex 2* and Gen 6-9* a triangular connection, where said three texts possess a lexical, conceptual, and theological semiotic relationship— all coalescing in the issue of cosmogony (consequently the narrative trajectory Ex 1/2-15[ff.] essentially matches the narrative arch of Gen 6-9*).3 The raison d‟etre for this chapter, therefore, is the watery language of the Song(s) at the Sea, in particular Mwht (vv.5, 8), and how it interfaces with part one of the Exodus tebāh text (Ex 2*) as well as Gen 6-9* where Mwhtand hbt converge. Further, the Egyptians belief
1 Throughout we will use the phraseology ―Song(s) at the Sea‖ of Ex 15*, a slight turn of the traditional phrase, ―The Song of the Sea.‖ This is done for a few reasons. First, the pluralizing in parentheses indicates that the prevailing consensus regards the poetry of Ex 15.1b-18 and 21b as two songs. Second, ―at‖ refers to location, whereas ―of‖ implies that the songs are primarily concerned with the Sea itself instead of YHWH‘s miraculous activity in relation to the Sea of Reeds. While the setting of the larger Song, at least, is not actually the Reed Sea (see 2.2, 2.3), it is nevertheless narratively placed there. 2 Midrash vaYosha vividly depicts Ex 1-2 and Ex 15 as two parts of one narrative arch; see Rachel S. Mikva, Midrash vaYosha: A Medieval Midrash on the Song at the Sea (Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism, 28; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), esp. 76-79, 86-87. So also Wisdom 18.5 and 19.4-5 (see Peter Enns, Exodus Retold: Ancient Exegesis of the Departure from Egypt in Wis 10:15-21 and 19:1-9 [HSM, 57; Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997], 107-112). 3 See ch.1 §3. See further Bosshard-Nepustil‘s discussion on ―Flutgeschehen und Meersdurchzug–Gen 7f und Ex 14‖ (Vor uns die Sintflut, 130-132, 133). 221
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
of the blest souls crossing the Field of Reeds in a funerary barque, as was discussed in the previous chapter, has some analogous reverberations in the biblical Sea crossing account(s), Ex 14(-15*). Henceforth, Ex 15* shall be exegetically examined to advance the understanding of the biblical appropriation of hbt.
0. Textkritik The contents of the poem(s)/song(s) of Ex 15* shall be set forth by the means of Textkritik. In textual criticism [1] the collation of lexical and grammatical variants from other textual families will be undertaken to construct insofar as possible how the autographs read, [2] significant para-textual annotations will be elucidated to systematize the text in its context, and [3] a translation of Ex 15.1-21 is generated. 0.1 Witnesses from Textual Families In collocating other Semitic and non-Semitic textual traditions of approximate relative antiquity to the MT, the linguistic divergences shall be examined. As a consequence, the most likely original text (autograph) shall be reconstructed based on the pedigree of any textual variants over against any potential corrupted philology based upon scribal error in transmission. Though reconstructing original texts in prose via textual criticism is always a delicate process with a degree of subjectivity, poetry presents its own challenges; sometimes due to meter, alliteration, rhyme, etc. it is more facile to recover the original text, yet in other cases it is even more difficult to ascertain the original orthography, etc. Consequently, much is at stake with text critical issues of poetry, for, because of poetic variation, it also has direct bearing on the dating of the Song(s), in particular. (Again, the enumerations below are BHS chs. and vv.; and the superscript letters indicate the number of text critical issues in any given verse [e.g., a=1, b=2, etc.]). a 15.1 Whereas the MT witnesses hwFhyla, the LXX attests tw|= qew|=. At issue here is the Deity‘s designation—the implications purporting to the authorial/redactional stratum. Interestingly, it is only the Tetragrammaton in v.1a that is called into question by the BHS editor (G. Quell), and not any of the eleven Tetragrammatons within the Song itself; this betrays the supposition of a separate authorial/redactional stratum for the colophon of the song. There is not sufficient evidence to amend the MT. b 15.1 SP has wr#O) where MT has hrFy#iO)f. The prior is in 2mp imperative conjugation, while the latter is a 1cs cohortative. Though SP‘s inflection seems the most appropriate
222
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
choice, MT‘s conjugation is not unintelligible; for, Moses declaring, ―May I / Let me sing…‖ can legitimately be perceived as the personification, or representation of Israel. Actually, many to all other versions witness a 1cp conjugation. With such an array of attestations, emendation is not advised. c 4 15.1 SP records ywg over against MT‘s h)ogF; actually MT‘s full phrase is h)fgF h)ogF-yk@i—the verbatim phrase is found in Ex 15.21 only (and the same textual variant is there present in SP). The SP must have interpreted the phrase as a case of dittography. However, rewriting phrases unique to the Ex 15 poetry is neither compulsory nor recommended. a 15.2 A few mss of the SP and Vulgate traditions possess the pronominal suffix yti- in
contradistinction to MT‘s trFm;ziw:. Had there been a yôd at the end of the word in question, it would have audibly blended into the initial yôd of the next word/name
(h@yF). Thus, haplography is the most plausible explanation for the variant, and should be reconstructed accordingly. Beyond this issue, the LXX differs on the noun altogether, attesting rather kai\
skepasth/j which is the Greek equivalent of ytirFt;siw:, ―shelter, protection‖ (and Quell draws a comparison from the usage of the same noun in Deut 32.38). This variant
appears to be an intentional alteration, since ytirFt;siw: and trFm;ziw: have little similarities (and in Deut 32.38 it is not coupled, for instance, with another word in Ex 15.2a), resulting in a theological statement made on the behalf of the Septuagint translators. b 15.2 h@yF, the diminutive form of the Tetragrammaton, is absent from the Septuagint (could such an equivalent even be possible in Greek?), possessing instead the pronoun ―he.‖ The aversion in ascribing a nomen may be the translators‘ solution in the respect for the Name. Either way, emendation is not exercised. c 15.2 The Syriac contains ln over against ly (yli), which would construe the phrase, ―There 5 is lodging [Nl] (un)to salvation,‖ or ―There is remaining [Nl] salvation.‖ As is 15.2aα has two nouns in 1cs pronominal suffix inflection (see 15.2a above), and 15.2aβ is essentially symmetrical with presence of the threefold î syllable alliteration (as well as
the similar initial ay syllable)—h(w#yl yl yhyw, ―he has become for me salvation‖— which echoes the aforementioned syllable. The yôd under questioning most feasibly
4 The Mp indicates h)ogF occurs sixteen times. 5 Cf. Gen 32.22 for the lexical phenomena Nl. 223
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
morphed in length to the form of a final nûn via faulty writing, hence yielding the Syriac variant. Emendation is not enacted. 15.2d The Greek (and in alignment the Peshitta and Vulgate daughter versions) witness has
kai\ doca/sw au0to/n, ―and I will glorify him,‖ rather than MT‘s w@hwIin:)w:, ―and I will praise him.‖6 This is a lexical preference (with slightly perceptible nuanced theological implications) exercised by the later recensions. The MT need not be doctored. a 15.3 What is under dispute here is MT‘s #Oy)i in the phrase hmxlm #y) hwhy, ―YHWH is a
man of war.‖ The SP and Peshitta have rwOb@g@i, ―warrior,‖ while LXX has suntri/bwn, 7 ―crusher,‖ or ―breaker.‖ As it stands hmxlm #y) occurs six times (so Mp), so it is not that the compounded subject is an odd construction. The variant has likely derived for
theological reasons, namely calling the Deity ―man‖ (albeit rwOb@g@i too is typically
employed for human warriors); regardless, the phrase hwhy hmxlm #y) is a metaphor. The text should not be edited for theological purposes. 15.3b In conjunction with the previous textual discrepancy, the SP attests the inseparable
preposition -b@a affixed to hmxlm; this renders, ―YHWH is a man in war.‖ The LXX attests the modifier pluralized: pole/mouj, ―wars.‖ Lastly, the Syriac variant is wqrbtn‟ (= et bellator), ―and the warrior.‖ The shorter construction (lectio brevior) is probably the best reading; so MT remains unaltered.
15.4 Whereas MT records w@(b@;+u, the Greek codex Vaticanus (along with the Syriac 8 Peshitta) has the variant katepo/ntisen, which is the equivalent to the Hebrew (b@a+i. The issue is one of person conjugation: 3ms or 3cp; do Pharaoh‘s best officers 9 collectively sink ((b@a+i), or do they all individually sink (w@(b@;+u)? There is not any translation difference (in English); however one envisages the subject, they ―are sunk.‖ The text need not be tampered.
15.5 According to multiple Hebrew mss from the Cairo Geniza wmwyskt is attested;
alternatively, SP has wmsky (cf. LXX e0ka/luyen au0tou/j). As is w@myus;kay: is a 10 conjugational hapax legomenon (so Mp), due partially to the archaic wm- ending.
6 This word‘s conjugation, in 15.2bα, is a hapax legomenon; and in 15.2bβ another conjugational hapax legomenon occurs (due to defective spelling): whnmmr)w, which is symmetry of unique lexemes. 7 Here and Josh 17.1; Jdg 20.17; 1 Sam 17.33; 2 Sam 17.8; Ezek 39.20. 8 Cf. Wevers, Greek Text of Exodus, 228. 9 w@(b@;+u is a conjugational hapax legomenon according to Mp, because of the Pual stem. 10 For the unique construction of wmysky see GKC §58g, 75dd. 224
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
This matter of spelling is difficult to evaluate since orthographical liberty is taken in poetry; therefore, emendation is deferred and hence remains as MT reads. 11 15.9 wOm)Iilfm;t@i, ―will have its fill‖, is differently attested in other rescensions. The Greek
witness has e0mplh/sw, ―will be satisfied;‖ and the Syriac rendering is tbl„ ‟nwn ((]lBt
nwN)), ―will strike them.‖ Quell claims the Syriac Peshitta has the same words set in
12 v.12 in parallel (though actually it reads nwN) t(l}Bw), something distinct from the
13 Hebrew (wOm(Iilfb;t@i) and Greek (kate/pien) witnesses. In either case the concept is the same, there are just different (less archaic) preferences in vocabulary/idiom. The MT does not need meddling.
15.10 Whereas the MT reads t@fp;#OanF, the SP has t@fb;#OanF. Both verbs, b#aOnF and P#aOnF, mean ―blow;‖14 and the phonetic difference between the two forms is nearly imperceptible.
Moreover, each verb is employed in the poem of Isa 40 (P#n in v.24 and b#n in v.7), so it is difficult to determine which the more poetical choice is. Consequently, emendation is deferred; the MT makes good sense. 15.11a Here the SP and Peshitta attest variants in the spelling of the same word as MT.
―Magnify‖ is inflected in SP as yrId@:);ne, and in Syriac it is inflected as hdjr (=
magnificus). The MT while reading rId@F);ne in v.11 was earlier spelt in a similar
construct in v.6 as yrId@:);ne (SP). The yôd, which may denote ―of‖ (greatness of), is probably the correct, though odd, orthography under the principle lectio difficilior; so haplography must explain the absent yôd here (cf. v.6). Emendation is taken. b 15.11 The LXX has e0n a9gi/oij which is actually equivalent to Hebrew My#Oidoq@;b@a, as opposed
to MT‘s #Odeq@ob@a. It is not likely to be known which form of the word was before the
Greek translators; #dq is also singular in v.13. Deference is best here.
15.13 Where MT attests t@fl;hanIi, the SP codex and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan possess the
variant spelling t@fl;xanI. Confusion between the two aspiration gutturals (h, x) leads to
completely different verbs. The verb ―to guide‖ (lhn) is preferable over ―to take/get as
11 This is a hapax legomenon in conjugation (so Mp), due to the archaic wm- ending. Cf. Annekatrin Warnke, ―Die Verbformen mit dem Suffix ‗w$m-‘ als Kernelemente der Textstruktur von Ex 15,1b-18,‖ Bib 83/3 (2002): 399-408, esp. 401. 12 International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament–The Peshiṭta Institute, eds., The Old Testament in Syriac; pt.1, fasc.1–Genesis-Exodus (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977), 152. 13 Certainly there is a conceptual parallel, and the Hebrew has an alliterative and assonance ilk. 14 BDB, 674, 676; HALOT, 728, 730. 225
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
15 possession‖ (lxn) because it achieves verbal matching (hxn, ―to lead‖). Consequently, faulty speaking/hearing in the scribal duplication process or faulty writing/transmission is the most feasibly explanations for the verbal variation amongst the traditions.
15.16 Instead of MT‘s htfmfy)iI, the SP contains the witness hmfy)iI. The Mp indicates that this is a hapax legomenon as it is fully written (i.e., not defectively spelt), for the hê converts to a tāw when the paragogic hê is affixed in the final position. Thus MT has correct, complete orthography and is in no need of repair. a 15.17 Concerning #OdFq@;mi (MT) the Peshitta adds a 2ms pronominal suffix. Clearly the Syriac tradition sees the word(s) in question as still in the series of nouns which are inflected
in the second person possessive (K1tb#l…K1tlxn). Lectio difficilior is to be preferred here, viz. MT‘s reading. b 15.17 Multiple Hebrew mss of the Cairo Geniza witness hwhy versus ynFdo)a: (MT). This is likely a variant derived from either theological impulsions (cf. 15.1a above) or to harmonize with the preponderance of Divine appellations throughout the Song. Insufficient evidence for emending the MT results in deferring such editing. c 15.17 The Syriac tradition varies again attesting tqnjhj b‟jdjk which would be K1ydeyFb@; NnIiwOkt@; in
Hebrew, as opposed to MT‘s K1ydeyF w@nn;IiwOk@. The Peshitta thus means to take God (2ms) as
the subject and God‘s hands as modifiers (Kydyb) of the establishment of a sanctuary that will take place (yiqtol); instead of, as in MT, God‘s hands being the subject (3cp) of the establishment of his sanctuary already established (qatal). Second century theological perspective has been the factor in altering spelling and tenses. Editing is not compulsory. a 15.21 The Septuagint, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Vulgate all witness w@ry#Oi (Qal imperative 2mp) in the 1cp verbal inflection (cf. 15.1b). The above traditions possess a yiqtol/cohortative conjugation to fit the context better, but an imperative is not an obscured rendering. Under the principle lectio difficilior the MT is preserved. 15.21b See 15.1c for the same phenomenon and evaluation. Though with poetry it is more difficult to determine the orginal autograph, the various textual traditions and rules of Hebrew poetics help to affirm that Ex 15.1-21 is a fairly reliable document as retained in MT (BHS).
15 Would this be (ironically) looking forward to the conquest in Joshua? 226
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
0.2 Para-textual Annotations Because Ex 15 is largely poetic in nature the BHS editor has indented the lyrical stanzas. There are three (prosaic) colophons which are not indented. And at the end of the poem(s)/ song(s) there is a large lacuna (the equivalent of one full line of spacing)—the likes of which is unparalleled throughout the whole book of Exodus. The poem(s)/song(s) of Ex 15 is couched approximately in the middle of the twelfth sēder of Exodus, as well as positioned in about the centre of the fourth pārāšāh (Beshalach).16 The beginning of Ex 15 starts, naturally, a new paragraph; and the Masoretes have placed an opened paragraph marker ( [p]) at the end of v.19. Next a closed paragraph marker ( [s]) sits posterior to v.21 (just before the lacuna). 0.3 Translation of Ex 15.1-21 For our translation of Ex 15.1-21 see Appendix C.
1. Synchrony
In this section synchronic exegesis will not be as thorough as chapters 2 (NOAH‘S TEBĀH [GENESIS 6-9*]) and 3 (MOSES‘ TEBĀH [EXODUS 2*]) of the present work; rather, the synchronic lens shall be focused specifically on all water verbiage and conceptual connotations of the same ilk. This honing is done because water is always the setting within which tebāh is couched, whether the floodwaters of Genesis or the Nile of Exodus; more specifically, Mwht features both in the Flood account and the Song—whose content is closely related to the events of Ex 2*. Thus Ex 15*, with the Reed Sea as continuation and culmination of the watery motif of Ex 1-15*, is vital for analysis of tebāh. The water-esque expressions of the Ex 15* poem(s) which shall be investigated, in particular, are the terms waters (Mym), sea (My), abyss
(Mwht), sunk (√(b+), and depths (tlwcm), and direct syntactical constructs thereof; viz. the verses examined (with the above terminology) are Ex 15.1, 4, 5, 8, 10, 21.17
16 That would be the 57th sēder and the 16th pārāšāt of the Pentateuch. 17 Likewise, J. Muilenburg (―A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh‖ in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodoro Christiano Vriezen…dedicata [eds. Van Unnick and Van der Woude; Netherlands: H. Veenman & Zonen N.V, 1966], 235) writes: ―Within the poem itself the terminology of the Sea is employed with great versatility, and the words appear almost invariably in strategic rhetorical collocations or climactic contexts: My (1d, 4b, 10b), Pws My (4d), tmht (5a, 8d), tlwcm (5b), Mym (8a), Myryd) Mym (10b).‖ 227
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
1.1 Structural Analysis D.K. Stuart, in his dissertation entitled Studies in Early Hebrew Meter, cogitates, Exodus 15 is interesting to the student of Hebrew prosody by reason of its strongly mixed meter. In no other early Old Testament poetry do we find more baroque variation between short and long meter, as well as between couplets and triplets. Repetitive parallelism abounds, and other archaic indices are frequent. Yet the overall unity and structure of the poem are remarkably clear.18 Within the scope of water-portending verses, many of these features shall be proliferated. 1.1.1 Ex 15.1 & 21 (cf. 2.1.1; 2.1.4; 2.2.2.3.1)
Myb hmr wbkrw sws h)g h)g-yk hwhyl hyr#) 15.1b Myb hmr wbkrw sws h)g h)g-yk hwhyl wry# 15.21 I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. (15.1b) Sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea. (15.21) The only word that is not verbatim betwixt these verses is the conjugation of the initial verb (though the verb itself is the same), therefore they are treated jointly. Of interest here is not only the generic reference to sea (My) but its associated verb as well. The use of hmr in the Qal19 is typically reserved for the action of a bow with arrow, that is, to shoot or cast.20 Thus the image is YHWH shooting, as an archer, horse and chariot(eer), as arrows, in(to) the sea. The specific sea is developed in the body of the poem. 1.1.2 Ex 15.4
Myb hry wlyxw h(rp tbkrm Pws-Myb w(b+ wy#l# rxbmw Pharaoh‘s chariots and his host he cast into the sea; and his picked officers are sunk in the Red Sea. The structure of this couplet is synonymous parallel, which can be schematized ABCA`B`C`.21 Pharaoh‘s chariots and army (A)22 is counterbalanced with the choicest of his 23 officers (A`). The verb ―cast,‖ hry, (B) is juxtaposed with ―sunk,‖ (b+, (B`). And My (C)
18 Stuart, Studies in Early Hebrew Meter (HSM, 13; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976), 80. 19 The Piel stem means to beguile (BDB, 941). See Gen 29.25; Josh 9.22; 1 Sam 19.17; 28.12; 2 Sam 19.27; 1 Chron 12.18; Prov 26.19; Lam 1.19. 20 BDB, 941; HALOT, 1239. Occurrences include: Ps 78.9; Jer 4.29. 21 Maribeth Howell (A Song of Salvation: Exodus 15,1b-18 [Ph.D. diss.: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, 1986], 57-58) claims the ―type of parallelism present here is known as staircase or climactic parallelism, with the second bicolon repeating and developing the first bicolon.‖ 22 Howell (A Song of Salvation, 234) sees these parties as a hendiadys, which does better counterbalance the second subject. 23 The former verb is in the Qal stem while the latter is Pual. 228
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
stands in parallel with the fuller Pws-My (C`). In both lines the syntactical order is S-V-O, with the subjects positioned in emphatic disjunction.24 25 The first verb (hry), though similar in semantics to hmr (15.1b, 21), connotes in the Qal casting as in to (over)throw.26 (In Ps 86.8 God again is the one who does the shooting, as with arrows, against the enemy of the worshipper.) The second verb ((b+) is usually in association elsewhere with sinking into mire/mud and/or pits (e.g., Ps 9.16; 69.3, 15; Jer 38.6,
22). The only other verbal pairing occurrence of hry and (b+ in the Hebrew Bible is in God‘s diatribe of Job 38.6 where he rhetorically asks regarding the earth: ―On what were its bases sunk [√(b+], or who laid [√hry] its cornerstone‖? Thus, biblically speaking, it is exclusively God‘s activity to (over)throw the enemy and to sink her into the waters. The sea which is generally stated in v.4a (and vv.1b, 21) takes a specified ―augmented 27 word pair‖ Pws-My in v.4b. Pws-My recurs throughout the Hebrew Bible in association with the exodus event,28 and only infrequently is it mentioned as a mere topological reference.29 30 Pws is defined as ―reeds‖ or ―rushes,‖ as in the Sea of Reeds (see further 1.2 below). 1.1.3 Ex 15.5
wmysky tmht Nb)-wmk tlwcmb wdry The floods cover them; they went down into the depths like a stone. This bicolon attests a synthetic parallelism where S-V-O is offset with S-V-O + simile. The verbs are ―cover,‖ hsk, and ―descend,‖ dry, respectively; and, the simile, Nb)-wmk, pictorially advances the second verb. What is stylistic intriguing here is how the subject of the first colon (tmht) finds its counterpart as the object in the second colon (tlwcm)—which, incidentally, rhymes; likewise, the object of the first colon (wm-) becomes the subject of the
24 Stuart (Hebrew Meter, 89) ―treat[s] the text as preserving two variants, metrically equivalent‖: h(rp tbkrm and wlyxw h(rp. Regarding the phrase wy#l# rxbmw see: GKC §128r; P. C. Craigie, ―An Egyptian Expression in the Song of the Sea (Exodus XV 4),‖ VT 20/1 (1970): 83-86. 25 As in shooting an arrow; see Ex 19.13; 1 Sam 20.20, 36, 37; 31.3; 2 Sam 11.20; 2 Kgs 13.17; 19.32; 1 Chron 10.3; 2 Chron 35.23; Ps 11.2; 64.5, 8; Prov 26.18; Isa 37.33. 26 See Josh 18.6; Num 21.30; Job 30.19; Hos 6.3; 10.12. Sa-Moon Kang (Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East [BZAW, 177; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989], 120) asserts, ―both verbs are used for the same meaning, but with different directions: hmr means to hurl down, hry to throw up.‖ 27 Wilfred G.E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques (JSOTSup, 26; Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1984), 132; cf. Shamir Yona, ―A Type of Expanded Repetition in Biblical Parallelism,‖ ZAW 119/4 (2007): 589; Muilenburg, ―A Liturgy,‖ 241. 28 All occurrences are: Deut 11.4; Josh 2.10; 4.23; 24.6; Jdg 11.16; Neh 9.9; Ps 106.7, 9, 22; 136.13, 15. Cf. Acts 7.36; Heb 11.29; Jdt 5.13; Wis 10.18; 19.7; 1 Macc 4.9. 29 Ex (10.19) 13.18; 22; 23.31; Num 14.25; 21.4; 33.10, 11; Deut 1.40; 2.1; 1 Kgs 9.26; Jer 49.21. 30 BDB, 693; HALOT, 747. 229
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
second colon (w-). Alternatively stated, the structure of this verse is chiastic (with the simile lying outside the chiasm):31 the waters referents comprise the outer ring (A + A`); the verbs make up the middle ring (B + B`); the subject form the centre of the ring structure (C + C`).
Mwht is here, and in v.8, in the less common feminine plural form, tmht. Both Mwht 32 and t(w)m(w)ht are found in prose and poetry alike. tmht is set in synthetic parallelism with 33 tlwcm, which is also plural; these are loosely paralleled again in Job 41.23, 24, Ps 107.24, 34 26, and Jon 2.4, 6. Usually hlwcm has watery connotations, although it does not necessarily have to (e.g., Ps 88.7; Zech 1.8); further, Neh 9.11 has the verbatim phrase as Ex 15.5b,
Nb)-wmk tlwcmb, the thrust of which is submergence (for more on Mwht see 1.1.4 and 1.2.2 below).35 This particular word pair, thus, denotes the subterranean depths to which the foe has ―gone down‖ and been ―covered.‖36 1.1.4 Ex 15.8
Mym wmr(n Kyp) xwrbw Mylzn dn-wmk wbcn My-blb tmht w)pq At the blast of thy nostrils the waters piled up, the floods stood up in a heap; the deeps congealed in the heart of the sea. This verse is a triplet37 comprised of one stich (v.8aα) and two hemistiches (v.8aβ, b).38 Ex
15.8aβ and 15.8b are hemistiches because the phrase Kyp) xwrbw is absent from them yet is elliptically implied; this technique is called ellipsis, gapping, or still pivot-pattern.39 In lieu of the repeatedly implied temporal clause (which is not exactly a verbal one though it carries that thrust), the two hemistiches have experienced length compensation40 in the form of prepositional phrases in order to achieve meter symmetry; hence, the v.8aα stich has eight
31 Cf. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (AB, 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 517. 32 All occurrences of t(w)m(w)ht are: Ex 15.5, 8; Deut 8.7; Ps 33.7; 71.20; 77.17; 78.15; 106.9; 107.26; 135.6; 148.7; Prov 3.20; 8.24, Isa 63.13. 33 Propp, Exodus 1-18, 517: ―The plural number…conveys grandeur and complexity; compare the cliché mayim rabbîm ‗many waters.‘‖ 34 Cf. Neh 9.11; Job 41.23; Ps 68.23; 69.3, 16; 107.24; Jon 2.4; Mic 7.19; Zech 10.11. 35 See Howell, A Song of Salvation, 60. 36 Robert Shreckhise (―The Problem of Finite Verb Translation in Exodus 15.1-18,‖ JSOT 32/3 [2008]: 293) observes, ―The yiqtol verb wmysky in v.5…could be considered a progressive past imperfective. The following qatal past perfective completes the verb‘s implied end: ‗The deeps were covering them, they went down into the depths like a stone. The process of covering would be in focus.‖ 37 So Stuart, Hebrew Meter, 89. Cross considers v.8 to be a couplet in counterbalance with (the couplet of) v.5 (ibid., 89). 38 By ―hemistich‖ we mean a half line, colon, or stich; see Paul E. Dion, Hebrew Poetics (2nd ed.; Mississuaga: Benben Publications, 1922), 7. 39 The semantic overlapping and uniqueness of these terms is sometimes difficult to separate; see Dion, Hebrew Poetics, 14-16. 40 See Dion, Hebrew Poetics, 15-16. 230
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
syllables and each hemistich possesses eight syllables too.41 Moreover, the (hemi)stich(es) all stand in synthetic parallelism one with the other. Within these (half-)lines the interplay of the parts of speech is poetically artistic. After the temporal phrase, the (hemi)stich(es) take the following structure in their parts of speech: V-S (v.8aα); V-Pp-S (v.8aβ); V-S-Pp (v.8b). The first prepositional phrase (Pp) is more precisely a simile advancing the description of the verb (wbcn); the second prepositional 42 phrase is truly just that, and in it there is a fourth citation to sea (My).
The three watery subjects are Mym, Mylzn, and tmht again. Mym is the most common and ubiquitous term for anything aquatic, naturally, occurring twenty one times in the Flood 43 Narrative alone. √lzn is a verbal construct that occurs sixteen times in the Hebrew Bible, just under half of which are conjugated in the participle form (―flowing‖) which can take the position, as here, of subject. Mwht is the subterranean portal between which the heavenly ocean and the earth bodies of water were thought to converge. 44 Mwht and Mym are often set as hendiadys throughout the Hebrew Bible; but √lzn is not a typical term in contexts such as this. The progression of not only the verbs in this verse (as will be seen below) but also the subjects is evocative: v.8 plummets from the surface waters (Mym) to the internal torrents (Mylzn) to the very source (tmht) of the tumultuous waters. The three verbs for the watery subjects are equally fascinating; for, all three verbs are not normally paired with liquids of any kind, since these are antithetical properties of water— hence the miracle at the Sea. First, the Mym ―piled up‖ (√Mr(). Actually, this is the only Niphal usage of the verb; otherwise it means to ―be/act crafty‖ in the Qal/Hiphil (e.g., 1 Sam 23.22x2; Job 5.13; Ps 83.4; Prov 15.5; 19.25; in toto). It is thus difficult to assess the exact meaning of the word in this context.
Second, the flowing waters ―stood up‖ (√bcn). ―Only in Exod 15:8 (niphal) and Ps 45 78:13 (hiphil) MT do we find bcn employed in association with water,‖ M. Vervenne notes.
41 Stuart (Hebrew Meter, 81), with a differently (re)constructed text, attests nine syllables in each. 42 Marjorie O‘Rourke Boyle (―‗In the Heart of the Sea‘: Fathoming the Exodus,‖ JNES 63/1 [2004]: 22) observes, ―the common reference of the several biblical citations of the ‗heart of the sea(s)‘beyond Exod. 15:8 is to the divine destruction of an enemy of Israel by punishment to death.‖ Cf. Stuart, Exodus (NAC, 2; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holdman Publishers, 2006), 353: ―The expression ‗in the heart of the sea‘…connotes a deep-water deliverance.‖ 43 Ex 15.8; Num 24.7; Deut 32.2; Jdg 5.5; Job 36.28; Ps 78.16, 44; 147.18; Prov 5.15; Cant 4.15, 16; Isa 44.3; 45.8; 48.21; Jer 9.17; 18.14. 44 See Job 28.14; 38.16, 30; (Ps 33.7); Ps 77.17; 104.6; 106.9; 135.6; Prov 8.24; Isa 51.10; Ezek 26.19; 31.4, 15; Jon 2.6; Hab 3.10. 45 Vervenne, ―Metaphors of Destruction in Exodus 15:8,‖ JNSL 24/2 (1998): 183. 231
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
―In Exod 15:8 the term Mylzn is the subject of bcn niphal, whereas in Ps 78:13 hwhy is the subject of bcn hiphil and the object is Mym. The latter text is clearly related to Exod 14:21- 22.‖46 So, only in a retelling of a story do waters ever stand up again. The precise nature by 47 which they stand is explicated in the simile dn-wmk. dn, meaning ―heap‖ or ―dam,‖ is not in the plural form and consequently does not synthesize with Ex 14.22 and 29 which speak of water walls on the left and right of the Israelites, although this is how the psalmist recounts it
(dn-wmk Mym-bcyw; Ps 78.13b). In the account of the Jordan crossing (Josh 3), dn is used literally of the river‘s waters heaping up, damming upstream so to make a way for Israel.48
Third, Mwht ―congealed‖ (√)pq). This verb ―is used in association with water (Exod 15:8), milk or cheese (Job 10.10), ponds (Sir 43:20) and probably wine sediment (Zeph 1:12).‖49 It denotes curdling in the Hiphil and condensing in the Qal; the latter is the verbal inflection in the Song. Curdling does not precisely mean solid, however.50 In summation, each of the three parts ([hemi]stich[es]) displays synthetic parallelism both with its three subjects, and with its three verbs.51 An ever solidifying mound of water coheres from an ever deepening source. A. Wolters puts it this way: ―The three subjects refer to the waters of the raging sea; the three verbs describe the movement of their upheaval. Each parallel line underscores the threatening and destructive character of the heaving seas which God has stirred up to execute his wrath.‖52 1.1.5 Ex 15.10
My wmsk Kxwrb tp#n Myryd) Mymb trpw(k wllc Thou didst blow with thy wind, the sea covered them; they sank as lead in the mighty waters.
46 Vervenne, ―Metaphors,‖ 183. 47 The former is attested by BDB, 622; the latter in HALOT, 671. See Josh 3.13, 16; Ps 33.7; 78.13; Isa 17.11. 48 Vervenne, ―Metaphors,‖ 183-184: ―the Akkadian nīdû [Heb. nēd]…is found repeatedly in omen texts and might mean something like ‗cloud formation‘.‖ Cf. Al Wolters, ―Not Rescue but Destruction: Rereading Exodus 15:8,‖ CBQ 52/2 (1990): 229-235. 49 Vervenne, ―Metaphors,‖ 185. Zech 14.6 is textually problematic. See also Lester L. Grabbe, ―Comparative Philology and Exodus 15,8: Did the Egyptians Die in a Storm?‖ SJOT 7/3 (1993): 263-269, who gives rebuttal to Cross‘s position in Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 128-129. 50 O‘Rourke Boyle, ―‗In the Heart of the Sea‘,‖ 26. 51 Cf. Howell, A Song of Salvation, 116-124. 52 Wolters, ―Not Rescue but Destruction,‖ 239. Cf. Propp, Exodus 1-18, 523; Vervenne, ―Metaphors,‖ 190: ―The verbal forms wmr(n, wbcn and w)pq in Exod 15:8 envisage a situation of complete ‗solidification‘ of the primeval power of ‗water‘ (Mwht, Mylzn, My).‖ Contra O‘Rourke Boyle ―‗In the Heart of the Sea‘,‖ 26. 232
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
V.10 contains two stiches (bicolon).53 Like 15.8, this verse‘s initial phrase/sentence functions in a pivot-pattern; the phrase Kxwrb tp#n is implied, by means of ellipsis, in the second stich. Thus when the Deity blew wind/breath (v.10aα) two synthetic paralleling phenomena took place (v.10aβ, b). The second stich has undergone length compensation, too, with two prepositional phrases (the first being a simile) offsetting the verse‘s initial phrase. Hence, each line has eleven syllables.54
The structure of 15.10aβ-b is as follows: they were ―covered,‖ √hsk (A) by My (B); 55 they ―sank,‖ √llc (A`), as lead, in the mighty Mym (B`). This bicolon resembles 15.5 in structure and verbiage. Whereas in 15.5a Mwht covers (√hsk) them, in 15.10a My covers
(√hsk) them. While 15.5b says they went down (V-S) into the depths (O) like a stone (simile), 15.10b states they sank (V-S) like lead (simile) into the might waters (O). The verbs portending sinking are different between v.5b and v.10b; the former is (b+ and the latter is 56 llc, which is not otherwise employed in this sense in the Bible. 1.2 Poetics Analysis The above exegesis has focused on individual verses concerning water language and imagery in particular. What emerges throughout the entire poem, though, are poetical strands which add dimension to its composition. D.J. Human summarizes these poetics thusly: Numerous poetic figures of speech such as rhyme (vv. 2, 7, 9, 13, 17), assonance (vv. 1, 17), alliteration (vv. 1, 8, 9, 16, 17), onomatopoeia (v. 10), simile (v. 5, 7, 8, 10), metaphor (vv. 15,17), personification (vv. 8, 12), hyperbole (v. 6 [2 times]), synecdoche (vv. 1, 6, 9, 16), metonymy (v. 7), hendiadys (v. 9, 16) and merism (v. 4) characterise the song.57 In this section the poetical contours relating to the Song‘s aquatic elements are developed. 1.2.1 Similes There are two similes of the same ilk in the first major part of the large song, even in the few verses of our limited scope concerning watery verbiage. In v.5 the enemies go down into the depths like/as (wmk) a stone; and v.10 portrays how aforesaid enemy sank like/as (-k) a lead
53 Again, we are using hemistich to indicate a half-line in the sense that even though both lines have the same syllable count the latter has the omission of the former‘s temporal phrase. 54 Cf. Stuart, Hebrew Meter, 82. 55 √llc ―is connected with Acc. ṣalālu, ‗sink, sink down,‘ hence ‗sleep,‘ often of death. Further than that the etymology is not clear‖ (Frank M. Cross and David Noel Freedman, ―The Song of Miriam,‖ JNES 14/4 [1955]: 247). 56 llc in the Qal also means ―tingle‖ and ―grow dark‖ (BDB, 852). 57 Dirk J. Human, ―Africa in Need of an Exodus?! Perspectives on the Theology of Exodus 15:1-21‖ in A Critical Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter Between Europe and Africa (ATM, 20; Münster: Lit Verlag, 2005), 80. 233
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
(weight). Both objects are graphic representations of some of the heaviest known minerals sinking, going down as far as possible. There is yet a third simile in the latter half of the Song. Though outside our concentrated scope it depicts the Egyptians as still/silent as/like a stone (v.16); this image, however, departs a bit from the other two where sinking is the primary concern. M. O‘Rourke
Boyle links Pharaoh‘s hard (√dbk) heart (Ex 7.14; 8.11, 28; 9.7, 34; 10.1 [27: √qzx]) with ―the strophic motif of the sinking of his charioteers in the sea like a stone, like lead, like a stone (Exod. 15:5, 10, 16; cf. Neh. 9:11).‖58 Consequently, ―the punishment of the Egyptians is just by the law of talion: hard hearts cast into the hardened heart of the sea.‖59
1.2.2 xwr
It is obvious that vv. 8 and 10 are akin, for they both have at issue the Deity‘s xwr (―wind, breath, spirit‖), and the effects thereof. Of particular interest is the possibility that 15.8 may be depicting a nasal inhale and 15.10 a nasal exhale. The former verse explicitly refers to the
Deity‘s nostrils (yp)), whereas the latter verse elicits the action of blowing (√P#n). Whence is the source of blowing in v.10? On the presumption of v.8 it is the nostrils, instead of, for example, the mouth. Yet, the exact nature of nostrils‘ activity in v.8 is lacking due to the absence of a verb in the initial phrase. Should P#n, or some derivation thereof, be supplied as many translations do unhesitatingly? If v.10 is explicitly an exhale through presumably the nostrils, then could v.8 depict a presumed inhale through the explicit nostrils? If so, then the power of the Israel‘s God in battle/saving is as simple for God as inhaling to dry up the sea (to let Israel pass though) and exhaling to close up the sea (to destroy the pharaoh and his army).60
The Deity‘s wind/breath having been blown (P#n) occurs once else in Isa 40.24, where, also in a poem, the Deity blows against adversaries (cf. 2 Sam 22.16//Ps 18.16).61 The
Deity blows his xwr in acts of creation also (Gen 1.2; 8.1). Paradoxically, the wind/breath of
58 O‘Rourke Boyle, ―‗In the Heart of the Sea‘,‖ 21. 59 O‘Rourke Boyle, ―‗In the Heart of the Sea‘,‖ 26. ―Beyond metaphorical hardness is also the physical fact of the sea experienced as hard against sentient bodies. This is not because the liquid solidifies into ice but because by the velocity of the wind the water attains a forceful mass that feels hard to confronted objects‖ (ibid., 26). 60 Human (―Africa in Need of an Exodus?!,‖ 87) similarly states, ―The frame image of the spirit motif in vv. 8 and 10 pulls the circle tighter around the murderous and vengeful enemies (v. 9).‖ 61 In Isa 40.24 the effect of God‘s blowing is to wither (#by) opposition; cf. #by esp. in Gen 8.7, 14 and Josh 2.10; 4.23. 234
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
62 YHWH at the exodus event is both a force of annihilation and (re)creation (cf. Gen 8.1). Actually, did God inhale before he exhaled words of creation (Ps 33.6)?
1.2.3 Mwht (cf.2.3.2.2.2 ) 63 Mwht occurs twice in this poem (Ex 15.5, 8), which is a relatively high frequency considering the Flood Narrative refers to it just as numerously (Gen 7.11; 8.2) in a much larger text. That the Creation account mentions Mwht only once (Gen 1.2) is not insignificant, for the term is used sparingly yet potently.64 Thus the Creation account, Flood Narrative, and the Song(s) of the Sea form a triangular relationship thereby inviting inner-biblical interpretation (see 2.2 below).
Mwht has long been noted as a highly charged lexeme, indeed. M.A. Grisanti summarizes how several scholars contend that tehôm directly derives from Tiamat, the Akk. goddess of the primeval ocean in the Enuma Elish (Childs, 36; B. Anderson, 39-40; M. Wakeman, 86-90), the chaos gods of Hermopolis in Egypt (Gourg, 11-15; tehôm is associated with the god Nun [standing water] while mayim is related to the god Huh [flowing water]), or from a Can. Chaoskampf (‗chaos battle‘) myth (Day, 7, 50).65
Of course, regarding the Levantine background of Mwht one ought not to be confined to an either/or (false) dichotomy.
The function of Mwht in Ex 15* is a ―connecting link‖ to the creation account of Gen 66 1. Just as Mwht was subdued by the Creator at the birth of time, so also is it subdued by 67 YHWH to produce the birth of Israelites history at the Sea. Of course, Mwht is also seen to be controlled by the Deity in the Flood Narrative. Mwht as subterranean waters, moreover, has
62 O‘Rourke Boyle (―‗In the Heart of the Sea‘,‖ 23) also sees affinities to holy war: ―The trumpet‘s blast that mustered holy war is imitated by Yhwh blowing through his nostrils like a wind instrument.‖ 63 e ―The word MwOht@; t hōm, rendered ‗deep,‘ undoubtedly belonged to the poetic tradition of antiquity, and consequently it is used without the definite article, which is rarely found in Biblical verse and is entirely wanting in Canaanite poetry‖ (Cassuto, Genesis, pt.2, 23). 64 These are five out of the eight occurrences of Mwht in the Enneateuch; otherwise: Gen 49.25; Deut 8.7; 33.13; Job 28.14; 38.16, 30; 41.24; Ps 33.7; 36.7; 42.8; 71.20; 77.17; 78.15; 104.6; 106.9; 107.26; 135.6; 148.7; Prov 3.20; 8.24, 27, 28; Isa 51.10; 63.13; Ezek 26.19; 31.4, 15; Amos 7.4; Jon 2.6; Hab 3.10. 65 Grisanti, ―MwOht;%,‖ NIDOTTE, 4:277. Regarding Egyptian background see further Waschke, ―MwOht;%,‖ TDOT, 15: 575. Cf also N.H. Ridderbos, ―Genesis i 1 und 2,‖ OTS 12 (1958): 233-241. 66 Waschke, TDOT, 15:579. This is ―an archetypal act of God, an event that shakes the very cosmos‖ (ibid., 580). 67 See Westermann, ―MwOht;%,‖ TLOT, 3:1414. 235
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
conceptual equivalency with the underworld (see further below).68 Therefore, in Gen 1.2, Gen
6-9*, and Ex 15* YHWH/God overpowers the abyss (Mwht) in order to create (anew).
1.1.4 Pws
Pws as part of the construction Pws-My is the most copious usage of the term. This phrase is most literally and best translated as ‗Reed Sea‘ or ‗Sea of Reeds,‘ as opposed to Red Sea. Regarding the latter stock phrase and its confusion with the former, J.A. Fitzmyer proliferates: The color [red] was probably derived from the neighboring mountains, desert sands, corals and phosphorescence. In this connection it is well to recall that the Egyptians called the Mediterranean the ‗Great Green.‘ In the Bible it is the yam sûp, an inland lake east of Baal-zephon, that is normally designated the ‗Red Sea.‘ Whereas this Hebr. expression really means ‗Sea of Reeds,‘ or ‗Reed Sea,‘ the LXX—save for Jdg 11.16 B (e3wj qala/sshj Si/f)—normally translated it by the Gk. Phrase e0ruqra/ qa/lassa (see Ex 10.19; 13.18; 15.4; Dt 1.40; etc.). Once this connection was made it persisted.69 70 While locating the exact body of water to which Pws-My refers is not our interest here, the way in which Pws-My was conceptualized by the Hebrews and how it was set in biblical memory is of particular concern.71
Outside the construction Pws-My, Pws only features four other times in the Hebrew Bible—half of those occurrences are in the Moses Infancy story.72 The reader meets Miriam first at the reeds of the Nile (Ex 2.3, 5) and then says adieu to Miriam, in the heroine light
68 Houtman, (Exodus, vol.2: Chapters 7:14–19:25 [HCOT; trans. Sierd Woudstra; Kampen: Kok Publishing House, 1996], 281) relays, ―as I see it…the meaning of the sing. differs from that of the pl., and the twmwht of the sea (15:5, 8; Jer. 63:13; Ps. 33:7; 106:9; 107:26; 135:6; 148:7) stand for the deepest water layers, the springs that feed the see [sic].‖ 69 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary (BO, 18. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966), 136-137. See also John Bright, A History of Israel (3rd ed.; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1981), 122: ―the sea (yam sûf) is properly the ‗Reed Sea,‘ not the Red Sea (the Red Sea has no reeds).‖ 70 As is the case, for example, of J. Simons, The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament: A Concise Commentary in XXXII Chapters (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959), 234-243. 71 See Thomas B. Dozeman, ―The yam-sûp in the Exodus and the Crossing of the Jordan River,‖ CBQ 58/3 (1996): 407-416. 72 Ex 2.3, 5; Isa 19.6; Jon 2.6. (Deut 1.1 appears to be a place name, perhaps associated with the sea.) See William A. Ward, ―The Semitic Biconsonantal Root SP and the Common Origin of Egyptian ČWF and Hebrew SÛP: ‗Marsh(-Plant)‘,‖ VT 24/3 (1974): 339-349. 236
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
that she enjoys (cf. Num 12), at the Sea of Reeds (Ex 15.4).73 The second part of Miriam‘s name (mir|yām), thus, ―might recall the deliverance at the yām-sûp.‖74 75 Pws also shares a noun and verbal homonym with the meaning ―end.‖ In this reading the Reed Sea is a topographical locale somewhere at the skirts of Egypt‘s provincial power.76 Regarding this point W. Wifall argues, ―the geographical yam-sûp…appears to have been closely related in the OT to the theological »Sheol«‖ based on Egyptian mythological/ religious background,77 namely ―the »lake« with its »field of reeds« was both the site of the first creation and of the earthly temple where life was renewed daily in the royal cult.‖78
Consequently, the cognate Pws as ―end‖ and the implication of ―extinction‖ or ―Sheol‖ naturally dovetail into a theological dimension, which shall be taken up later (see ch.6).
1.3 Summary To sum up, the first half of the larger song of Ex 15 is inundated, naturally, with watery descriptors and pictorial imagery; and the linguistic artistry of lyrical stanzas via thorough parallelism, paronomasia, etc. is exquisitely masterful. The assorted verses above tell of an aquatic termination of the enemies of YHWH/Israel. This is similar to those unrighteous outside the tebāh in the Flood Narrative—especially with the intra-textual Leitmotiv Mwht— and similar, to a lesser extent, of what ought to have been the fate for infant Moses on the Nile (Nun) that abysmal similitude.
2. Diachrony
Under diachronic exegesis the entire poem(s) and colophons shall be evaluated (as opposed to the limited scope of the synchronic exegesis above), that is Ex 15.1-21. As with our two
73 Cf. Phyllis Trible, ―Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows‖ in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy; The Feminist Companion to the Bible, vol.6 (ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 172-173. 74 Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 236. 75 HALOT, 746-747. See 2 Chron 20.16; Esth 9.28; Ps 73.19; Ecc 3.11; 7.2; 12.13; Isa 66.17; Jer 8.13; Joel 2.20; Zeph 1.2, 3. 76 See Maurice Copisarow, ―The Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Hebrew Concept of the Red Sea,‖ VT 21/1 (1962): 6-13; Snaith, ―PwOs-My: The Sea of Reeds: The Red Sea,‖ VT 15/3 (1965): 395-398; Ward, ―The Semitic Biconsonantal Root SP,‖ 343-344, 347-248; Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 115; idem, ―The Reed Sea: Requiescat In Pace,‖ JBL 102/1 (1983): 31-33. 77 Walter Wifall, ―The Sea of Reeds as Sheol,‖ ZAW 92 (1980): 332; Batto, ―The Reed Sea: Requiescat In Pace,‖ JBL 102/1 (1983): 33-34. 78 Wifall, ―The Sea of Reeds as Sheol,‖ 328. Cf. again ch.4 §3. 237
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Pentateuchal texts (Gen 6-9* & Ex 2*), the diachronic exegesis of Ex 15.1-21 involves Literarkritik, Formen/Gattungskritik, and Komposition/ Redaktionskritik. Total diachronic exegesis is executed now in order to elucidate the entire poem(s) within which the Mwht motif, especially, is appropriated. It shall be seminal to determine who wrote the first part of the large poem, who redacted its framework, and how this interacts with the highly specialized context of Mwht vis-à-vis tebāh. As the literary and theological triangular component Ex 15* shall be compared with both Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* throughout this section. 2.1 Literarkritik The following Literarkritik seeks to [1] define the bounds of textual unit(s) of Ex 15*, its beginning(s) and ending(s); [2] assess the Einheitlichkeit (unity) and/or Uneinheitlichkeit (disunity) of Ex 15*; [3] determine the author(s)/source(s) of the textual unit(s); [4] (re)construct a Literargeschichte, arranging the component parts of the textual unit(s) one to another. 2.1.1 Beginning and Ending of The Song(s) at the Sea (cf. 1.1.1 & 2.2.2.3.1) There are clearly two colophons in Ex 15.1-21 which forms the headings of two separate songs, vv.1a, 20. Also, there is an ending colophon to the first song comprised of v.19—the 79 end and not the beginning because of the Masoretic paragraph marker (p); yet the end of the second song echoes, as it were, without a prosaic conclusion (again note the expansive lacunae). The poetic components of the two songs, consequently, are vv.1b-18 and 21. The content of the superscriptions in each instance (vv.1a, 20) introduces (1) the speaker(s), Moses and the Israelites, and Miriam and the women, respectively, (2) that they sung (√ry# and √hn(, respectively), and (3) the audience to whom they sung, to YHWH in the first instance and to the co-worshippers (v.21a) in the second (and presumably the Deity ultimately). There is additional datum in the second superscription colophon, namely an introduction of Miriam (as prophetess and sister to Aaron [cf. Mic 6.4]) and her percussion 80 instrument which accompanied the bicolon refrain: Pto@, a ―timbrel‖ or ―tambourine.‖ The prosaic subscription (v.19), inversely, specifies the occasion whereupon the song is derived: kî—―because‖ or ―when‖—―the horses of Pharaoh with his chariots and his horsemen went into the sea, [yk] the LORD brought back the waters of the sea upon them; but the people of Israel walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea.‖
79 Ancient exegetes often surmised that v.19 is the final verse of poetry; however, this has widely been rejected today. Cf. Hans Schmidt, ―Das Meerslied. Ex 15.2-19,‖ ZAW 49 (1931): 59-66, esp. 63. 80 BDB, 1074. Cf. HALOT, 1771-1772. 238
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.1.2 The Einheitlichkeit and/or Uneinheitlichkeit of The Song(s) at the Sea By virtue of attesting two heading colophons, two poetical units, and a closing colophon for one and a large closing lacuna for the other, Ex 15.1-21 is thus uneinheitlich.81 The disunity can be demarcated as follows: Ex 15.1-19 and Ex 15.20-21.82 The question of unification or disunity within the two sections is a valid, advanced inquiry. In the case of Ex 15.20-21, the former verse (again) is a colophon and the later the bicolon song (save the speech formulae); thus the brevity of song cannot be a disunity. With Ex 15.1-19, or more precisely the poetry sandwiched therein (vv.1b-18), would perhaps, at first glance/read, appear a disunity because of the bifurcated lyrical content; 15.1b-12 concerns the here-and-now rescue/liberation/salvation/redemption, and 15.13-18 depicts future events and unmet peoples. However, the bifurcation of the song does not necessitate disunity (as can be evidenced by a host of psalms in the Psalter) but is in fact Einheitlichkeit (see further 2.3).83 2.1.3 Authorship of The Song(s) at the Sea Considering the foregoing literary analysis, it would be most probable to deduce there are one or more authors of the poetic units and one or more compositional hands at work in the prosaic units. While it may seem feasible to assume one compositional hand is responsible for the longer song with colophons (15.1-19) and another for the shorter song with colophon (15.20-21), song/poetry is nearly always a more primal kernel from which prose grows.84 It may alternatively appear likely that one author has crafted the poetry (15.1b-18, 21b) and one redactional compositor contributed the prose (15.1a, 20-21a); however, it shall be briefly demonstrated below how this is not probable on both accounts. 85 The most palpable judgement regarding authorship is that the colophonic prosody and the poemic song(s) are from different hands and eras. Since the Song(s) are indeed archaic (as opposed to archaized),86 the parts of poetry (Ex 15.1b-18, 21b) stand outside the typical
81 We are speaking here of a textual Uneinheitlichkeit; the occasion of liberation and symphonic nature of song does necessitate a singular setting. 82 Cf. again the Masoretic paragraphing accordingly. 83 Cf. Dozeman, God At War: Power in the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 154-159. 84 Knierim, ―Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered,‖ Int 27/4 (1973): 443-445. 85 In theory a final possibility, though quite unlikely, is that Ex 15.1-21 is a unified piece by a singular author composed in one sitting, so to speak; so Martin L. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Ex 15.1-21 (BZAW, 195; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991); Houtman, Exodus, vol.2, 241. 86 See e.g., Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), 121: ―the language of Exodus 15 is more consistently archaic than that of any other prose or poetic work of some length in the Bible. The poem conforms throughout to the prosodic patterns and canons of the Late Bronze Age.‖ 239
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
authorial/redactional strands of P(G, S) and nP which span throughout the Tetrateuch.87 The Song of Miriam (15.21b) is likely sourced by Miriam herself, crystallized in oral tradition (see further 2.2.2.3.1); and the so-called Song of Moses (15.1b-18) was later developed by cultic tradents (see further 2.2.2.3.2). Concerning P, it must first be observed what the Grundschrift has conveyed in the Sea Narrative of Ex 14. T. Römer comments that the general consensus of P‘s literary strand is Ex 14.1-4, 8, 9b, 10*, 15*, 16*, 18, 21*, 22-23, 26, 27aα, 28-29.88 Interestingly, Ex 14.29a is 89 verbatim of Ex 15.19 (Myh Kwtb h#byb wklh l)r#y-ynbw). Though the style of P is quite pedantic, it would be unlikely even for P to repeat himself in the Song‘s colophon. Rather it is more logical that nP reduplicates P‘s verbiage for the purpose of resumptive repetition (see further 2.4).90 Therefore, P‘s narrative crescendo becomes nP‘s colophon reprise. P‘s composition, consequently, is the colophon to Miriam‘s Song, vv.20-21a.91 Naturally it would be a priestly writer (or circle/school) that would depict Miriam as the sister of Aaron, who is the forefather of the priesthood;92 also, she is referred to as a prophetess,93 a role of great affinity to the cult,94 especially relating to music and song (see further 2.2.2.2). For P, therefore, the story flows from the climactic miracle at the Sea to the (immediate) response of Miriam, and all the women, in singing and dancing, in worshipping YHWH. As for nP, this redactional stratum, along with supplementing the narrative of Ex 14*, is responsible for the colophon to the Song at the Sea, vv.1b and 19.95 Ex 15.1b supplies the male and more global counterpart to Miriam and the women. V.19 has long been taken as belonging to P.96 This has been conjectured because of a key lexeme consistent of P‘s vocabulary: h#b; ―dry ground‖ is used in P‘s creation account (Gen 1.9, 10), a verbal form of
87 So Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament (David E. Green; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1968), 11, 187-189; Brian D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Studies in Biblical Literature, 101; New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 132. 88 Römer, ―The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document‖ in The Strata of the Priestly Writings (eds. S. Shectman and J.S. Baden), 167; cf. also Guilliaume, Land and Calendar, 194. 89 Indeed, ―15:19 emphatically connects the contents of the song to the crossing described in Exod. 14‖ (Houtman, Exodus, vol.2, 293). 90 Perhaps nP in penning v.19b was aiming to achieve a dual verbatim phrase among Ex 14-15*, for P has the couplet verbatim phrase h#b Myh Kwtb l)r#y-ynb w)byw in 14.16b and 22a. 91 So Dozeman, Exodus (ECC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009), 320. 92 Hyun Chul Paul Kim (―Gender Complementarity in the Hebrew Bible‖ in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective [SAC, 1; eds. W. Kim et al.; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2000], 271) postulates, ―…Miriam could have been a perceived as a priest.‖ 93 See Susan Ackerman, ―Why is Miriam Also among the Prophets? (And is Zipporah among the Priests?),‖ JBL 121/1 (2002): 47-80; Kim, ―Gender Complementarity,‖ 271. 94 For an example of the overlap of priests and prophets see Samuel in 1 Sam. 95 So Dozeman, Exodus, 318, 320. 96 Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1974), 248; Russell, Song of the Sea, 132-133, 137; Smith, Exodus (The New Collegeville Bible Commentary, 3; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2011), 64. 240
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
it (√#by) is featured in the Flood Narrative (Gen 8.7, 14), and it is featured in P‘s Sea 97 Crossing account (Ex 14.16, 22, 29). Although, nP is not unaccustomed to utilizing h#b; in the plague account nP writes of dry ground in relation to the Nile (Ex 4.9).98 Moreover, the other parts of v.19 (aα and aβ) parrot pieces of P‘s Sea narrative, as evidenced by the graph below.
Myh ym-t) Mhl( hwhy b#yw 15.19aβ Myb wy#rpbw wbkrb h(rp sws )b yb 15.19aα nP
Myrcm-l( Mymh wb#yw 14.26b Myb…wy#rpw wbkr h(rp sws…w)byw 14.23 P
Though P‘s style is repetitive in nature, in this case we have an example of repetitive resumption which nP has gone to lengths to achieve—thus making the longer Song, via its colophons, a part of the story. That Ex 15.19 is from the nP compositor is evidenced moreover in the choice of the
Divine appellation in both opening and closing colophons (v.1b, 19): hwhy (see 0.1). Not only is this nP‘s name preference, but nP must also mirror the preponderant usage of the Divine appellation of the Song. In fact, P does not even transcribe YHWH per se—P quotes the shorter Song which has the Tetragrammaton inherent to it. 2.1.4 The Literargeschichte of The Song(s) at the Sea (cf. 1.1.1 & 2.2.2.3.1) It is widely accepted that the Song of Miriam (15.21b) is the older and the Song of Moses (15.1b-18) the younger poem.99 Consequently, the so-called Song of Moses was developed on the basis and grew out of the bicola of Miriam‘s Song.100 That the longer Song has blossomed out of the bud of Miriam‘s terse song is substantiated by the (near) verbatim exclamation of the former‘s first line to the latter‘s entirety, hence displaying dependency.
Myb hmr wbkrw sws h)g h)g-yk hwhyl wry# 15.21
Myb hmr wbkrw sws h)g h)g-yk hwhyl hyr#) 15.1
97 T. Römer notes, ―The expression yabbasha (‗the dry ground‘), which is seldom used in the Hebrew Bible, occurs in Gen 1,9-10 as well as in Exod 14,16.22.29; in both cases the ‗dry ground‘ stands as the space where life is possible, contrary to the water, whose omnipresence makes life impossible‖ (―The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document‖ in The Strata of the Priestly Writings [eds. S. Shectman and J.S. Baden], 168). 98 For h#b and the Sea cf. further Josh 4.22; Neh 9.11; Ps 66.6. 99 See the list of scholars in Human, ―Africa in Need of an Exodus?!,‖ 91 n.55. 100 E.g., Noth, Exodus: A Commentary (OTL; trans. J.S. Bowden; Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1962), 123. 241
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Literary dependency is fortified in part by the principle lectio brevior, that is, the shorter reading is the older.101 Indeed, a song one stanza in length would be realistic and conducive for a community to collectively sing in the moment of deliverance. For a time the two songs enjoyed contextual independence, free-floating about the cult as it were. The Songs were subsequently merged into a narrative block (Ex 1-15*), so the latest stage in Literargeschichte was the colophons constructed in order to frame and segue the usage of the poetical units. The final product is a coherent tapestry: Ex 15.1-21 (see further 2.2 and 2.3).
2.2 Formen/Gattungenkritik 2.2.1 Formenkritik Formenkritik exegesis [1] delineates the structure of the textual units; [2] compares analogous forms to the textual units of each poetic (and prosaic) complex; [3] performs comparative analysis with ANE texts of similar form and structure; [4] assembles the Formengeschechte of textual units (of Ex 15*). 2.2.1.1 The Form of Ex 15.1b-18 The Formen of the Song(s) at the Sea has been the subject of much proliferation, and its demarcations are somewhat subjective; even the major bifurcation divide of Ex 15.1-18 is not unanimous.102 Some scholars say Part I consists of vv.1-12 and conversely Part II is vv.13- 18,103 while others think Part I comprises vv.1-11 and Part II of the poem vv.12-18.104 Still other scholars see three major strophes;105 yet, among these vv.11 and 12 are still problematic
101 Bernhard W. Anderson (―The Song of Miriam Poetically and Theologically Considered‖ in Direction of Biblical Hebrew Poetry [JSOTSup, 40; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987], 289) calls this a ―weak‖ determinant. 102 See e.g. Howell‘s survey in her A Song of Salvation, 160-212 (ch.5). 103 E.g., Shreckhise, ―The Rhetoric of the Expression in the Song by the Sea (Exodus 15,1-18),‖ SJOT 21/2 (2007): 201-217; Childs, Exodus, 252; Hamilton, Exodus, 230; Durham, Exodus (WBC, 3; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 205; J. Philip Hyatt, Exodus (NCB; London: Oliphants, 1971), 163; Richard Coggins, The Book of Exodus (Epworth Commentaries. Peterborough: Epworth, 2000), 63; Mark S. Smith, ―The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation,‖ CBQ 58/1 (1996): 44; Howell, A Song of Salvation, 218, et passim; Cross, Caananite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 125-126; Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978), 67. 104 E.g., Noth, Exodus, 124-125; Stuart, Hebrew Meter, 80; Coats, ―The Song of the Sea,‖ CBQ 31/1 (1969): 6; idem, Exodus 1-18, 119; Russell, Song of the Sea, 23 et passim. 105 E.g., Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus (trans. Israel Abrahams; Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1967), 173; Human, ―Africa in Need of an Exodus?!,‖ 82-83 (cf. 76-77); Cross and Freedman, ―The Song of Miriam,‖ 239-240; Richard D. Patterson, ―The Song of Redemption,‖ WTJ 57/2 (1995): 453; Driver, The Book of Exodus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953), 129. Cf. also Jasper J. Burden, ―A Stylistic Analysis of Exodus 15:1-21: Theory and Practice,‖ in Exodus 1-15: Text and Context (OTSSA/OTSWA, 29; eds. J.J. Burden et al.; Pretoria: V&R Printing Works, 1987), 51; Smith, Exodus, 63. Cf. Hans Schmidt, ―Das Meerslied,‖ 60-61; Josef Linder, ―Das Siegeslied des Moses, Ex. 15,‖ ZKT 44 (1920): 75-76. 242
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
concerning their connectivity or non-connectivity.106 Among those scholars who detect a twofold thematic stanza division (at v.12 or 13), some hold the two units represent two distinct authors who were writing/compositing and different times.107 If the major demarcation of 15.1-18 is debated, then the strophic subunits—and the terminology for those subunits—are all the more contested.108 Although, themes are often more salient to establish than are larger structural complexes. It is from the subunit motifs that we organize stanzas, analyze intra-stanza harmonizing, and construct the strophes from those building blocks.109 The following, then, is our delineation of the Formen of Ex 15.1-18 based on the aforesaid factors.110 Prologue (v.1b) The initial bicola, a doublet of v.21, is a standalone overture; it introduces the overarching theme of the Song which will thence be develop, and it serves as a sort of refrain for it.111 Stanza A (vv.2-3) The first stanza underpins the Deity as the orchestrator of the Song‘s depicted events. Thrice, in these verses, the Deity is the ―LORD,‖ and is twice called the singer‘s ―God‖; nevertheless, there is diversity in these appellations: ―God‖ is l) and
Myhl) (v.2b), and ―LORD‖ takes both the full-form (hwhy) and the poetic, short-form (hy) of the Tetragammaton. This Deity has three anthropomorphic/metaphoric qualities as envisaged by the singer: YHWH is a man of war, is (my) salvation, and is (my) strength and song (cf. v.1: ―I will sing…‖). Flowing from the last hendiadys especially (and the previous metaphor generally), there is a matching twofold intonation: whnmmr)w…whwn)w (v.2). Stanza B (vv.4-5) The next stanza begins to enumerate the particulars of what was proclaimed in the overture refrain; and in this enumeration the waters are centrifugal. The horse and chariot(eer) of v.1b is developed as ―Pharaoh‘s chariots and his host…and his picked officers‖ (v.4); these were cast by Deity into the sea…the Reed Sea…the depths wherein they sunk. Thus, the couplet of v.4 and the bicolon of v.5 contribute three watery locales and the subject transitions from the Deity to the abyss—also an aquatic oubliette.
106 Cassuto (Exodus, 173) separates v.11 from v.12 (so Muilenburg, ―A Liturgy,‖ 242-245), but Cross and Freedman (―The Song of Miriam,‖ 239) affixes them together (so Smith, Exodus, 63). 107 George Adam Smith, The Early Poetry of Israel in its Physical and Social Origins (London: Oxford, 1912), 51; Muilenburg, ―A Liturgy,‖ 233-251; Dozeman, God at War, 154. Cf. the list in Houtman, Exodus, vol.2, 242. 108 For a brief survey, see Coats, ―The Song of the Sea,‖ 2 n.9 (7). Cf. Erich Zenger, ―Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus XV 1-21‖ in Congress Volume: Vienna 1980 (VTS, 32; ed. J.A. Emerton; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 452-483, esp. 455. 109 For a specific methodological outline, see Yona, ―A Type of Expanded Repetition,‖ 591. 110 For a summary of a few scholars‘ demarcations as well as his own, see Houtman, Exodus vol.2, 246. 111 Cf. Muilenburg‘s idea of ―introit‖ (―A Liturgy,‖ 238). 243
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Stanza C (vv.6-7) The following stanza parses out the victory/destruction from another perspective, one devoid of water references yet one in the spirit of v.2 where YHWH is warrior. The central motif here is YHWH‘s right hand (hwhy Knymy; v.6a, 6b) and domain verbs associated with the hand(s)/arm(s): √srh, ―overthrow‖ (v.7a) and √xl# piel, ―shoot‖ (v.7b). In vv.6-7 the LORD is the subject (or source) of every action/verb; and the second person verbal and adverbial inflections referring to the LORD number seven. The object throughout is packaged in language nothing less than ―enemy‖ (v.6) and ―adversaries‖ (v.7). Stanza D (vv.8-10) The water verbiage is resumed in this large stanza, most especially in vv.8 and 10. V.8 depicts the waters pulling apart and going up with three verbs ()pq, bcn,
Mr(), and v.10 portrays the waters going down and commingling in two verbs (llc, hsk).
The waters itself manifests a multiplicity of terms: Mym, Mylzn, and tmht (v.8); My and Mym
Mydyd) (v.10; cf. v.6). Moreover, the catalyst for the upward and downward movement of the waters is the xwr of the Deity. Vv.8 and 10 appear to be quite pivotal in content, for they interface with several other verses and stanzas. First, v.8 and v.5 share the loaded term Mwht. Second, the simile substance of v.10 and v.5 are extremely similar (stone and lead, respectively). Third, the issue of the Deity‘s xwr (vv.8, 10) that blows (P#n; v.10) through Deity‘s nostrils (Kyp); v.8) is euphemistic of anger; and burning anger (Nwrx) is what the LORD is said to have sent forth to consume as chaff the adversaries, in the preceding verse/strophe. V.9 may not appear at first glance to fit with vv.8, 10 thematically; however its placement more graphically illustrates the scene than if it were any place elsewhere. In between the opening of the sea by the breath/wind of the LORD and the closing of the sea by the same, the enemy is portrayed as pursuing Israel in the midst of the billabong (cf. Ex 14.21-29). The enemy articulates haughty threats, and the first person conjugation occurs seven times;112 compare the sevenfold counterbalance with what is attributed to YHWH in 113 v.7. Further, an ironic usage of hand(s) (ydy) is employed contrastingly to YHWH‘s right hand (Knymy)—the hand of the enemy does not destroy (√#ry; v.9) Israel, rather Israel‘s God shatters (√C(r; v.6) the enemy with his right hand!
112 This count enumerates four verbs in the 1cs declension and three subjects with the 1cs pronominal suffixes, two of which (soul and hands) are paired with verbs in the 3fs conjugation. Also, ―The murderous ‗I‘ of verse 9 stands in stark contrast to the praising ‗I‘ of verse 2‖ (Human, ―Africa in Need of an Exodus?!,‖ 87). 113 See Ronald L. Giese, Jr., ―Strophic Hebrew Verse as Free Verse,‖ JSOT 61/1 (1994): 35 for discussion regarding v.9 as dirge. 244
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Stanza E (vv.11-12) This next stanza is unique from the rest; it comprises a couple (rhetorical?) questions (v.11), and then provides an answer (v.12). The phrase ―Who is like you‖ (hkmk[-]ym) is doubly writ; in point of fact, some variation of it is a fairly standardized stock-phrase in the Hebrew Bible (see Ps 35.10; 71.19; 89.9 [MT]; Mic 7.18).114 YHWH‘s incomparability concerns majestic holiness (#dqb rd)n), awesome praise (tlht )rwn), and working wonders ()lp h#(; cf. Ps 77.15; 78.12). V.12 appears to be (along with v.11b) an answer to the questions set forth:115 YHWH caused the earth to swallow the adversaries; this envelopment of the enemy by the Cr) (v.12) is analogous to the envelopment of the same by
Mym (v.10b). The particular agent of said destruction, furthermore, is YHWH‘s right hand
(Knymy; cf. v.6). Stanza F (v.13) This stanza comprises one verse, for a shift in theme begins here. The lauded action of the Deity revolves around leading and redeeming Israel. The leading verbs
(√lhn, √hxn) form an envelope structure enfolding the redeeming verb (√l)g); and this leading is performed by the agency of God‘s love (dsx) and strength (z(; cf. v.2a). The destination or purpose of purchasing/guiding the Israelites is to bring them hwn-l) K#dq (cf. v.17). Stanza G (vv.14-16) These verses form a stanza due to its prominence regarding the nations. Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Canaan in general are recognized (vv.14-15) and are subsequently referred to by plural pronouns (wmdy…Mhyl( lpt; v.16). These peoples shall experience trembling (√zgr), pangs which seizes (zx) lyx), dismay (√lhb), seizing trembling
(d(r √zx)) with the effect that they melt away (√gwm); indeed, terror and dread (dxpw htmy)) 116 falls upon them all. Chiefs (ypwl)), leaders (yly)), and denizens (b#y) alike are all terror- stricken at what the LORD has done/will do. The end of Stanza G (v.16b) is akin to Stanza F (v.13) as far as relaying Israel‘s migration. In v.13 YHWH leads (√lhn…√hxn) Israel; in v.16 YHWH causes Israel to pass by 117 (√rb(…√rb() potential snares —just as they had passed through the Sea (though the same verb is not used to express such [cf. Ex 12.12, 23]). Thus, God‘s leading Israel to his holy
114 Cf. the cousin phrase there is none/no one like you: Deut 3.24; 2 Sam 7.22; 1 Kgs 8.23; 1 Chron 17.20; 2 Chron 6.14; Ps 86.8; Jer10.6-7. 115 Among the other occurrences of the interrogative formulae ―Who is like you, O Lord‖ (or the like), a minority attests the qualities of God within the question/statement only (e.g., Ps 35.10) while most frequently an explanatory elaboration does extend beyond the interrogative (e.g., Ps 77.15f; 89.9ff.; Mic 7.18ff.), like Ex 15.11-12. 116 Interestingly, these total seven traumas; cf. the seven verbs and pronouns of vv.6-7 and v.9. 117 The dual statement of v.6 (…hwhy Knymy…hwhy Knymy) as the third refrain of the Song is often highlighted. 245
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
abode involves passing them by/through the aforesaid nations and peoples.118 Also, just as v.13 inextricably links redemption (√l)g) to leading, so v.16 conjoins passing by with the purchase (√hnq) of Israel. Stanza H (v.17) Having glanced at the nations‘ reactions, the focus comes back onto the Israelites. This stanza resumes, in a way, that which was proclaimed in Stanza F. The terminal K#dq hwn of v.13 is developed in a tripartite manner here: it is the mountain of your inheritance (Ktlxn rhb), the fixed place of your dwelling (tb#l Nwkm), and the sanctuary
(#dqm). It is this locale to which Israel will come (√)wb) and in which they will be planted
(√(+n); these two actions are balanced with two verbs that YHWH exerts toward the establishment of his dwelling (√Nwk, √)#(). V.17 is similar to v.13 also in how the (poet‘s) voice consistently speaks to God in the second person. Epilogue (v.18) The final verse is unique unto itself and is therefore its own stanza.
This declarative cola realizes a climaxing conclusion, portentous of enthronement: Klmy hwhy d(w Ml(l. This is the end result of the mighty victory/destruction that YHWH has accomplished, and the leading of the Israelites‘ to YHWH‘s dwelling place. V.18 is similar to v.12 in that they both contain a four word staccato; that these two verses are the tersest cola of the entire poem invites comparative analysis. Vv.12 and 18 could be interpreted as outer frames (a type of inclusio) of one textual unit (vv.12-18), on the one hand; or, on the other hand, as the exclamation mark, of sorts, at the end of two respective textual units of the Song (vv.1-12; vv.13-18).119 From the above examination of verse groupings into stanzas and the inner- and intra- stanza analysis larger structures, i.e. strophes, can now be configured. As noted above, the difficulty in dividing strophes according to major linguistic and thematic units centres on v.12. There is general agreement that vv.1-11 (at least) is one unit focusing on the victory/destruction at the sea and that vv.13-18 (at least) is a unit whose scope is the wilderness journey and conquest. But to which strophe belongs v.12?120 It is perhaps purposefully ambiguous so as to serve as a hinge of the bifurcated poem.121
118 Brenner (The Song of the Sea, 30) underscores the terminological distinction between Israel (God‘s M() and the nations listed (yb#y). 119 See M.S. Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus (JSOTSup, 239; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 211-214. 120 Hyatt (Exodus, 165) illuminates how v.12 ―has been interpreted by some scholars as referring to the incident described in Num. 16:1-32, in which the earth opened its mouth and swallowed Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with their households, because of their rebellion against Moses (cf. Ps. 106:17). With this interpretation, verse 12 is related to the verses that follow. However, it is better to translate Cr) as ‗underworld‘, a meaning it has in Gen. 2:6; I Sam. 28:13; Isa. 29:4; Jon. 2:6…‖ We agree with the foregoing assessment; see 246
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
In the end, we posit v.12 belongs in a stanza with v.11, as intimated above. This judgment is further based on corroborating evidence found in Ps 77, which is inspired by Ex 15* (see 2.2.2.3.1 below). Ps 77.14b-15a [MT] exclaims, ―What god is great like our God?
Thou art the God who workest wonders…‖ These last two words ()lp h#() are verbatim in Ex 15.11b, and the overall tenor is comparable besides. The psalm next makes mention of
God‘s arm (though (wrz [Ps 77.16a] instead of Knymy [Ex 15.12]) which is wielded to bring about deliverance. Immediately thereafter there is a Selah (hls) marker; thus, both the reference to the arm of God and the exclamation of God‘s incomparability are in close proximity before a major structural break, even though the closely related exodus allusions to a deliverance from water subsequently ensue (Ps 77.17-21 [MT]).122 As a consequence, we posit the two major strophes are Ex 15.1b-12 and 15.13-18.123 2.2.1.2 The Form of Ex 15.21 Due to the brevity of Miriam‘s Song only a few remarks can be made by way of form. First, there is an imperatival invitation to sing to YHWH (hwhyl wry#). Second, the reason or grounds
(yk) for song of praise is given: because ―he has triumphed gloriously.‖ Third, there is an embellishment, or specificity, of the grounds for praise: ―the horse and his rider he has thrown into the sea‖ (v.21b). 2.2.1.3 A Corollary Form Critical Text of Ex 15.1b-18: Judges 5 ―In Hebrew poetry,‖ observes P.C. Craigie, ―two of the earliest and finest extant poems are…the Song of the Sea and the Song of Deborah‖ in Jdg 5.124 The product of inter-poem comparison is therefore indispensable. It should be noted first that Jdg 4 is, like Ex 14, the prosaic version the older poetic counterparts; additionally, Jdg 4, and its incorporation of Jdg 5, is part of the DtrH corpora, whereas Ex 14 and 15* are incorporated into the P–nP corpora of the Tetrateuch. The Song of Deborah is therefore quite germane to the Song of Moses.125
further William L. Holladay, ―‘Ereṣ—Underworld: Two More Suggestions,‖ VT 19/1 (1969): 123-124; Wilfall, ―The Sea of Reeds as Sheol,‖ 327-328. Cf. also Prov 1.12: ―like Sheol let us swallow them alive and whole, like those who go down to the Pit‖. 121 Indeed, we see Ex 15.1b-18 as a poem of two strophes (not three), as most do. 122 Granted, this analysis is still not exceedingly persuasive; for, Ps 77.15b-16a speak of God‘s strength (z() and redemption (√l)g)—terms which both occur in Ex 15.13. Hence the ongoing debate! 123 Cf. Dozeman, Exodus, 334 n.87. 124 Craigie, ―The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta,‖ JBL 88/3 (1969): 265. So also Frank M. Cross Jr. and David Noel Freedman, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry (SBLDS, 21; Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), 5; Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 121. Contra Serge Frolov, ―How Old Is the Song of Deborah?,‖ JSOT 36/2 (2011): 183. 125 In fact, both the Ashkenazic Haftarah and Sephardic Haftarah for the Torah portion Ex 13.17–17.16 (Parsha Beshalach) is the Song of Deborah (Jdg 4.4–5.31 and Jdg 5.1-31 respectively). 247
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
The opening colophon of each song (Ex 15.1a/Jgs 5.1) denotes the leader (Moses/ 126 Deborah) and the participant(s) (Israelites/Barak) who sing (√ry#; also Jdg 5.3, 12). The opening stanza of the songs have their content structurally inverted from one another; for, whereas the form of Ex 15.1b is imperative–grounds (―Sing to the LORD…for…‖), Jdg 5.2 proceeds in a grounds–imperative pattern (―That…bless the LORD!‖). The Ex 15* and Jdg 5 poetical units also both have a closing prosaic colophon, v. 19 and v.31b (―And the land had rest for forty years.‖), respectively. There are many linguistic similarities between the two large Songs.127 First and 2, 3, 6, 11, 16, 17, 18, 19 2, 3, foremost, the appellation for the Divine is the same: hwhy (Ex 15. || Jdg 5. 4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 23, 31 ). Both attest how horse(s) ([My]sws) and chariot(eer)s ([t]bkr[m]) are thwarted 128 (Ex 15.1b, 4 || Jdg 5.22, 28). And just as YHWH wields his right hand (Nymy) to strike the enemy (Ex 15.6, 12), so does Deborah (Jdg 5.26). These data are charted below. Exodus 15 Judges 5 Right hand Thy right hand, O LORD, glorious in power, thy She put her hand to the tent peg and her right right hand, O LORD, shatters the enemy. (v.6) hand to the workmen‘s mallet; she struck Sisera Thou didst stretch out thy right hand, the earth a blow, she crushed his head, she shattered and swallowed them. (v.12) pierced his temple. (v.26) Horse(s) & Chariot(s) I will sing to the LORD, for he has triumphed Then loud beat the horses‘ hoofs with the gloriously; the horse and his rider he has thrown galloping, galloping of his steeds. (v.22) into the sea. (v.1b) Pharaoh‘s chariots and his host he cast into the Out of the window she peered, the mother of sea; and his picked officers are sunk in the Red Sisera gazed through the lattice: ‗Why is his Sea. (v.4) chariot so long in coming? Why tarry the hoofbeats of his chariots?‘ (v.28)
The warfare terminology continues and develops. In Ex 15* YHWH is hailed as #y) hmxlm, ―a man of war‖ or ―warrior‖ (v.3a) who has ―triumphed gloriously‖ (v.1b) by ―overthrow[ing]‖ ―adversaries‖ (v.7a) and ―shatter[ing] the enemy‖ (v.6b); they are ―thrown‖ (v.1), ―cast‖ and ―sunk‖ (v.4), and ―consume[d]‖ (v.7b). In Jdg 5 YHWH is described as one who ―march[ed]‖ (v.4a) against his ―enemies‖ (v.31a) and ―fought‖ them (v.20a); and, in participation with YHWH, Deborah et al. ―marched‖ (vv.11, 13x2, 14 [21]) against those who ―fought‖ (v.19; cf. v.8) her, namely the ―commanders‖ (vv.9, 14) and ―kings‖ (v.19) of Canaan—there is also reference of ―shield and spear‖ (v.8), and perhaps ―archers‖ (v.11
126 The conjugation of this verb in Jdg 5.1 is interesting. Even though it is Deborah (f) and Barak (m) who together sing, the inflection of ry# is 3fs. Typically the conjugation would be 3mp for a group that comprises any men. For the verbal inflection to read 3fs thus emphasizes that it is her, Deborah‘s song. 127 David A. Robertson (Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry [SBL Diss, 3; Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1972], 32) notes orthographically: ―Like Ex 15, Judges 5 strongly resembles those Ugaritic poems which both the pref and suff conjugations occur, but the latter predominates.‖ 128 See Mark Leuchter, ―‗Why Tarry The Wheels of his Chariot?‘ (Judg 5,28): Canaanite Chariots and Echoes of Egypt in the Song of Deborah,‖ Bib 91/2 (2010): 256-268. 248
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
KJV).129 Moreover, both poems make mention of spoil, plunder. In Ex 15.9a the following words are put into the mouth/heart of the enemy: ―‗I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil [ll#], my desire shall have its fill of them‘‖—but this is thwarted by YHWH; x4 similarly, in Jdg 5 YHWH is responsible for Israel spoiling (ll#) her enemy (v.30 )—again, coming from the lips of the enemy (having been placed there by the poet).130 Furthermore, the environs of both battles, though actually ordinary, are portrayed on a cosmic level. In Exodus the earth (Cr)) swallows Deity‘s/Israel‘s enemies (15.12), and the peoples are quivering (√zgr; 15.14) and trembling (d(r; 15.15); in Judges the earth (Cr)) 131 quakes (√#(r) and the heavens drop (√P+n) because of Deity‘s advancing march (5.4). Ex
15 and Jdg 5 mutually figure a prominent mountain (rh) in provocative ways: Exodus 15.17 Judges 5.5 Thou wilt bring them in, and plant them on thy own mountain, the place, The mountains quaked before the O LORD, which thou hast made for LORD, yon Sinai before the LORD, thy abode, the sanctuary, LORD, the God of Israel. which thy hands have established.
The most relevant (cosmic) element for our purposes, though, is water; and in both extant poetical songs there is water-esque verbiage in abundance. In Ex 15 the Egyptians are
―thrown into the sea [My]‖ (v.1), ―cast into the sea [My]‖ (v.4a), ―sunk in the Red Sea [Pws-My]‖
(v.4b); ―The floods [Mwht] cover them; they went down into the depths [tlwcm] like a stone‖
(v.5); ―the waters [Mym] piled up, the floods [Mylzn {cf. Jdg 5.5}] stood up in a heap; the deeps
[Mwht] congealed in the heart of the sea [My]‖ (v.8); ―the sea [My] covered them; they sank as lead in the mighty waters [Mym]‖ (v.10). In Jdg 5, by comparison, ―the clouds dropped water
[Mym]‖ (v.4), ―the sound of musicians [are] at the watering places [Myb)#m]‖ (v.11), ―Asher sat still at the coast of the sea [Mymy]‖ (v.17), battle is ―at Taanach, by the waters [ym] of
Megiddo‖ (v.19), and ―The torrent [lxn] Kishon swept them away, the onrushing torrent 132 [lxn], the torrent [lxn] Kishon‖ (v.21). Beyond lexical similarities, The Song of Deborah is comparable to the Song(s) at the Sea in strophic arrangements. In Ex 15* the first strophe (vv.1b-12) concentrates on the victory accomplished by God and subsequently envisions future victories, listing several peoples and places (vv.13-18). Likewise, in Jdg 5* the initial strophe relates a God-assisted
129 For Ccx in the Piel stem, see BDB, 346 and cf. HALOT, 344. 130 Whether or not the spoiling depicted in Jdg 5.30 actually transpired is inconsequential. 131 Furthermore, Jdg 5 speaks of the sun (v.31) and stars (v.20) amidst the celestial expanse. 132 Cf. Mark Leuchter, ―Eisodus as Exodus: The Song of the Sea (Exod 15) Reconsidered,‖ Bib 92/3 (2011): 335. 249
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
militaristic triumph (vv.2-13); next occurs a listing of peoples and places who did not participate in the campaign (vv. 14-18).133 This structure is redoubled in the subsequent two strophes of the Song of Deborah where focus is retrospective (vv.19-23) then prospective (vv.24-30); the former relates more of what the battle might actually have been (in comparing Jdg 4), while the following section speculates what is futuristic (at least in narrated time).134 An alternative poetic unit of similar Formen to Ex 15* is Habakkuk‘s prayer/song (cf. Hab 3.1, 19b) encapsulated in Hab 3. Several significant features such as analogous terminology, structural affinities, and Divine conquering/judgment–(to-be) deliverance backdrop all serve as grounds to inform the unique and homogenous features of the Song of the Sea. Hab 3.8-10 are the most relevant verses of the prayer/song for our purposes.135
Was thy wrath against the rivers [Myrhn], O LORD?
Was thy anger against the rivers [Myrhn], or thy indignation against the sea [My], when thou didst ride upon thy horses, upon thy chariot of victory? Thou didst strip the sheath from thy bow, and put the arrows to the string. Selah
Thou didst cleave the earth with rivers [twrhn].
The mountains saw thee, and writhed; the raging waters [Mym Mrz] swept on;
the deep [Mwht] gave forth its voice, it lifted its hands on high. The prophet Habakkuk petitions his God for a deliverance from the Babylonians much to the tune of the exodus deliverance, evoking poignant themes and lexemes in his prayer. First, chariot and horses is reminiscent of the exodus; yet, instead of Pharaoh and his elite officers riding such war vehicles, YHWH is pictured as riding on horses and chariot of salvation (cf.
Ex 15.2a)! Second, horses and chariot of Hab 3.8-10 is situated near the rivers (My/twrhn), raging water (Mym Mrz), sea (My), and primordial abyss (Mwht); in Ex 15* the horses and chariots and riders all went into the sea (My; v.1, 4a, 8, 10), the Reed Sea (Pws-My; v.4b), the 136 depths (tlwcm; v.5), the waters (Mym; v.8, 10), and the primordial abyss (Mwht; v.5, 8).
Third, YHWH‘s anger (hrx) is said to be directed at the rivers (Hab 3.8); and indeed the anger
133 Cf. Gregory T.K. Wong, ―Song of Deborah as Polemic,‖ Bib 88/1 (2007): 1-22. 134 For the foregoing strophic demarcation in Jdg 5, see Michael David Coogan, ―A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah,‖ CBQ 40/2 (1978): 143-165, esp. 153. Cf. Mark A. Vincent, ―The Song of Deborah: A Structural and Literary Consideration,‖ JSOT 91/4 (2000): 61-82. 135 Cf. Jdg 5.5 and Ex 15.17 with Hab 3.10 of Targumic tradition: ―When you revealed yourself upon Mount Sinai they beheld your glory, the mountains quaked, the rain-clouds passed on, the deep lifted up its voice, the hosts on high were amazed and stood still‖ (Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets [Aramaic Bible, 14; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1989], 159). 136 Cf. William F. Albright, ―The Psalm of Habakkuk‖ in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (ed. H.H. Rowley; New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1950), 5. 250
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
(Nwrx) of YHWH was directed at his enemies who were then drowned in the sea (Ex 15.7)— the sea being the indirect object, or instrument, of YHWH‘s fury. Hab 3.8-10 not only alludes to the Reed Sea crossing (Ex 14-15*), it furthermore is reminiscent of the Flood (Gen 6-9*)!137 The rainbow in Gen 9 has long been thought to be germane with Hab 3.9 (―Thou didst strip the sheath from thy bow, and put the arrows to the string.‖),138 where the Divine warred against the primeval, chthonic forces by subduing the primordial abyss and subsequently retired his bow in the hanging, peaceful position in the sky.139 Such cosmic and celestial scope is clearly in mind for the prophet. Habakkuk invokes deliverance not only on the scale of the exodus, but even on the scale of the Noah‘s deliverance from the Flood (and evil generation) for his situation!140 2.2.1.4 A Corollary Form Critical Text of Ex 15.21: Psalm 117 The concise structure of the Song of Miriam (2.2.1.2 above) finds counterpart Formen in the tersest psalm in the Psalter. Ps 117, only a bicolon in length too, commences with the imperative to a group to praise YHWH (hwhy-t) wllh; v.1aα) and gives the grounds (yk) for so doing: ―great is his steadfast love toward us; and the faithfulness of the LORD endures for ever‖ (v.2[a]). Though similar in form, Ex 15.21 and Ps 117 may not necessarily have any intra-textual influence or dependency. Even though Psalm 117 is the most comparable to Miriam‘s Song in size and style, verbal similitude is closer still with Isa 12.5a:
h)g h)g-yk hwhyl wry# Ex 15.21b
h#( tw)g-yk hwhy wrmz Isa 12.5a
With such linguistic commonality the natural question that arises at this point is which textual tradition is influenced by which.141 2.2.1.5 The Form of Ex 15* vis-à-vis ANE Exaltation Liturgies of Deities There are two major pieces of religious literature from the ANE whose structural elements portent to the Song(s) of the Sea; these are the Akkadian/Babylonian Enuma Elish and the
137 Francis I. Anderson, Habakkuk (AB, 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 329-330. 138 See further Aaron Pinker, ―The Lord‘s Bow in Habakkuk 3,9a,‖ Bib 84/3 (2003): 417-420; Michael L. Barré, ―Yahweh Gears Up for Battle: Habakkuk 3,9a,‖ Bib 87/1 (2006): 75-84. 139 Wellhausen, Geschichte Israels I: Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Berlin: Reimer, 1878), 352. Cf. the hypothesis of the bow expounded by Carola J.L. Kloos in ―The Flood on Speaking Terms with God,‖ ZAW 94/4 (1982): 639-642. 140 Cf. J.J.M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991), 155. 141 See Russell, Song of the Sea, 104. 251
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Canaanite/Ugaritic Baal Epic.142 In addition, two less extant and loosely analogous parallels in Egyptian literature shall be analyzed; these are (the two versions of) The Repulsing of the Dragon, Hymn to the Aton, and the Hymn to the Nile.143 The Levantine influence of both the major cultures to the north/east and south/west has been discussed on a literary level in the previous chapter; so we may expect to find (the possibility of) an amalgamated influence upon Ex 15*. 2.2.1.5.1 Enuma Elish In the Babylonian creation poem there are several striking parallels to not only Gen 1 and 2 but Ex 15 as well. Corollary analysis of the Hebrew creation account must first be elucidated before the secondary correlations can interface with Ex 15*. Then the cosmic parlance of Ex 15* shall saliently portent not only the Genesis creation account but demonstrate affinity to the Babylonian one as well. It will be helpful first to summarize Enuma Elish. At the dawn of time before anything was created in the universe, there existed a primordial watery mass, Apsu, and Mummu–Tiamat (I.3-5 || Mwht; Gen 1.2). Subsequently gods are created, and strife arises amongst them; efforts to usurp the creator are made, and retaliation is effected (tablet I). The conflict eventually escalades to the point where war breaks out (tablets II, III). The personifications of the two sides are, on the one hand, the champion Marduk,144 and, on the other hand, the mother goddess, Tiamat. Before the decisive battle commences, Marduk is hailed by the council of gods as the avenger (IV.13; cf. II.123) and enthroned as supreme god or king (IV.14; cf. II.125). Marduk at the conclusion of the battle is victorious, destroying Tiamat (tablet IV). Henceforth, Marduk inaugurates his kingdom/dominion (tablet V), as well as establishing a temple (tablet VI). The account climaxes with 50 venerating titles that are proclaimed to Marduk‘s glory (tablets VI, VII). Viewing more specifically the decisive battle between Marduk and Tiamat and the ensuing aftermath, several corollary details between the Babylonian and Hebrew creation accounts emerge. When Marduk destroys Tiamat he splits her carcass in two; one half
142 The primary texts for both these accounts are cited from ANET, translated by E.A. Speiser (additions by A.K. Grayson) and H.L. Ginsberg, respectively. For transliterated text of the former we cite Philippe Talon, The Standard Babylonian Myth Enūma Eliš (SAACT, IV; Finland: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 2005), and for the latter Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol.1 (VTS, 55; Leiden: Brill, 1994) and Mark S. Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol.2 (VTS, 114; Leiden: Brill, 2009). 143 The primary texts for both these accounts are cited from ANET, translated by John A. Wilson. 144 ―In the heart of Apsu was Marduk created / In the heart of holy Apsu was Marduk / He who begot him was Ea, his father / She who bore him was Damkina, his mother / The breast of goddesses he did suck / The nurse that nursed him filled him with awesomeness‖ (Enuma Elish I.81-86). 252
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
becomes the sky while the other is the matter for earth (IV.137-140 || Gen 1.6-10).145 Henceforth, Marduk creates night with moon and day with sun, and there is the derivation of seasons (V.11-46 || Gen 1.3-5, 14-18);146 also, Marduk creates the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers (V.55 || Gen 2.14).147 Furthermore, Marduk creates savage-man (VI.5-7; cf. VI.33-35 || Gen 2.4b-7) and bestows upon him dominion, or ―the service of the gods‖ (VI.8; cf. VI.36 || Gen 1.26, 28). In sum: ―(Thus) he covered [the heavens] (and) established the earth‖ (V.62 || Gen 1.1; 2.4a).148 Now the nexuses between the Enuma Elish and Ex 15* can be drawn both directly and circuitously through inter-creation account parallels (Babylonian/Akkadian and Hebrew). First, there are various elements of the biblical sea crossing which are mirrored in the Babylonian creation account. One poignant link between Enuma Elish and the exodus event is the key verb (qb. The Reed Sea is twice said to split (√(qb; Ex 14.16, 21 [cf. Ps 74.15; 78.13, 15]) for the Israelites‘ safe passage, just as Marduk split (√ḫepû[m]; IV.137 [cf. IV.101; V.74]) Tiamat‘s carcass.149 Actually, Enuma Elish and the biblical Flood share key semantics too: (1) Mwht (≈ Tiamat) is said to have split ((qb) thereby initiating the Flood
(Gen 7.11), and (2) kūbu, the ―monster‖ who is split, is a near anagram of the verb (qb, ―to split.‖ Another thematic connection between the sea crossing (Ex 14-15*) and the Babylonian creation account is that just as Pharaoh and his army advanced after the Israelites with chariots into the midst of the Sea—and there drowned by YHWH—so is there mention in Enuma Elish of Marduk advancing on a storm-chariot (II.118; IV.50 [cf. Hab 3.8b]). Second, there is a distinct battle/destruction motif common to Enuma Elish and Ex 15*. Marduk battles for ascendancy of the throne, and Marduk does ascend to sovereignty both through conferment by the council of gods and militaristic success. By comparison, in the Hebrew Bible the Deity does not explicitly have foes (mythological elements are present
145 Actually, latter piece is not given explicit commentary; Berossus, however, states the implied—that the second half was used has constructive material for the earth. See S.G.F. Brandon, Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1963), 112. 146 Due to the Babylonian text/tablet being damaged, it is unknown whether or not there is a reference to stars. 147 There are some parallels in Marduk‘s creation depicted in tablet V more fitting with the Hebrew deluge at points; and, this is fitting since one aspect of the Genesis Flood events is the Deity de-creating and re- creating the world. For example, whereas the Akkadian tradition has the creation of clouds and floods at the second stage of creation, i.e. Marduk‘s (V.47-55), similarly these phenomena do not appear in the Hebrew account until Gen 6-8 (cf. Gen 2.6)—a later stage of (de-)creation, as it were. Also, Marduk‘s creation of mountains in his stage of creation (V.56-58) is akin to the first mention of mountains in Genesis which is during the Flood (Gen 7.19, 20; 8.4, 5), that de-creation or second stage of creation—re-creation. 148 See Sparks, ―Enūma Elish,‖ 630-632. 149 Talon, Enūma Eliš, 56. Ḫepû(m) stands in parallel with zâzu, ―to divide‖ (ln.136; cf. also VI.10; VII.60). 253
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
albeit de-mythologized150) and is always envisaged as sitting on the throne of the cosmos. Inversely, some of Tiamat‘s legions comprise ―monster-serpents‖ and ―roaring dragons‖ (I.133+36; II.20+23; III.24+27, 82+85)—in fact, Tiamat is also called a monster (IV.136);151 these creatures‘ names comports, in the Hebrew Bible, with the watery depths (Tiamat ||
Mwht) and the title given to the pharaoh in the Prophets: Nynt(Isa 27.1; 51.9; Ezek 29.3; 32.2)—each of whom are subjugated by Israel‘s God.152 Specific to Marduk‘s warfare, he is seen to possess two weapons throughout the epic (beyond apparently his own hands which cleave Tiamat). These weapons (kakku) are bow (qaštu – IV.35, 38; cf. VI.82-90 || Hab 3.9a; Gen 9.13-14, 16) and flood-storm (abūbu – IV.49, 75; VI.125 || Hab 3.10b; Gen 1.2; 6-8*). The latter weaponry is utilized at the Reed Sea when YHWH wields the abyssal waters to destroy Israel‘s enemy (Ex 15.4-10, esp. vv.8,
10), and the former weapon is faintly alluded to when the verb hmr (Qal) is employed of YHWH shooting (as an arrow) the enemy into the sea (Ex 15.1b, 21). Third, a strong theme of temple and kingship is present in both the Songs of Ex 15* and The Seven Tablets of Creation. Kingship, again, is conferred on one based upon a cosmic victory in battle. Like Marduk who is hailed supreme king (VII.161-162; IV.28; V.110), so YHWH, was, is, and always will be King: ―The LORD will reign for ever and ever‖ (Ex 15.18). Moreover, YHWH‘s eternal reign, YHWH‘s enthronement as King is portrayed in Ps 29.10 as 153 located ―over the flood [Mwht (≈ Tiamat)]‖ (see ch.2 2.3.2). Every king resides in a palace, and gods dwell in temples. Both Marduk and YHWH have a variety of terms referring to their D/divine dwellings places. Marduk says, ―I will build a house, it will be my luxurious abode, I will found therein its temple, I will appoint cellas, I will establish my sovereignty‖ (V.122-123; cf. V.138; VI.51-53, 58); also, Marduk is the patron of the sanctuaries (V.115). Similarly, YHWH has a righteous abode (#dq hwn;
15.13b [cf. v.17b]), an inheritance mountain (hlxn rhb; 15.17a), an established dwelling
(Nwkm; 15.17a) that YHWH‘s patrons shall eventually come to realize.
150 This is widely noted; see e.g., James Barr, ―The Meaning of ‗Mythology‘ in Relation to the Old Testament,‖ VT 9/1 (1959): 1-10, esp. 7. Contra David Toshio Tsumura (Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005]) who argues there is no mythology, subdued or otherwise. 151 There is supplementary mention, in these contexts, of ―the Viper, the Dragon, and the Sphinx‖ (Enuma Elish I.139; II.27; III.31, 89); the exact correlation (and differentiation of the previously mentioned dragons), however, is not fully discernible. 152 See M.K. Wakeman, God‟s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 68-73, 79; she concludes, ―the noun tannîn is properly a mythological term…referring to the monster who was strick down and|or set under guard by Yahweh when he established his dominion‖ (73). 153 See further Edward Lipiński, ―Yāhweh Mâlāk,‖ Bib 44 (1963): 405-460; A. Gelston, ―A Note on Klm hwhy,‖ VT 16 (1966): 507-512. 254
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.2.1.5.2 The Baal Epic Enuma Elish is the literary progenitor of the Baal cycle; the former was received, altered and modified by the Ugaritic peoples into a legend more contemporarily relevant and culturally specific to their god, Baal.154 Like Marduk, Baal has a watery foe; instead of the primeval abyssal Tiamat, though, Baal fights the Gemini foe Prince Yamm and Judge Nahar. Like
Tiamat, these two opponents also find counterpart in Hebrew scripture: My and rhn; hence, the Baal cycle displays a strong resemblance to Ex 15*. When Yamm and Nahar overstep their jurisdiction, Prince Baal (and father El155) is compelled to retaliate. Baal not only constrains the trespass of Yamm and Nahar but drives them further into oblivion. The crescendo of the battle scene is conveyed in the following poetry (KTU 1.2 IV.20-34):156 Expel Yamm from his throne, Nahar from the seat of his dominion. May you leap from Baal‘s hand, Like a raptor from his fingers. Strike the head of Prince Yamm, Between the eyes of Judge River. May Yamm sink and fall to the earth.‘ The weapon leaps from Baal‘s hand, [Like] a raptor from his fingers, It strikes the head of Prince [Yamm], Between the eyes of Judge River. Yamm collapses and falls to the earth, His joints shake, And his form sinks. Baal drags and dismembers (?) Yamm, He destroys Judge River. By name Athtart rebukes (him): ‗Scatter, O Mighty Ba[al], Scatter, O Cloudrider. For our captive is Prin[ce Yamm] [For?] our captive is Judge River…‘ …and he goes out… Mighty Baal scatters him… …and [s/he answers (?):] Yamm surely is dead! Baal rei[gns!(?)] …he …he indeed rules!‘ …he answers: ‗Yamm surely is dead! [Baal reigns(?)], He indeed rules!‘
154 Actually, Enuma Elish‘s source and inspiration was Sumerian cosmogony; see e.g., Brandon, Creation Legends, 66-90; Leonard W. King, Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition (London: Oxford University Press, 1918), 102-144. 155 Baal is also called the Son of Dagon; this dual/conflicting datum has long been commizerated. 156 Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol.1, 323-324. Formatting differs. 255
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
The Baal cycle goes on to depict Baal erecting a temple for himself, possible at this time because of the defeat of his enemies.157 The location of the temple is Mount Zaphon, and it is from whence that Baal exercises his global sovereignty.158 If the bifurcation of Ex 15*‘s structure seems unnatural, the matter is made more intelligible with the backdrop of the Baal Epic.159 In the first part of both textual traditions there is a decisive battle won over, or with the means of, water.160 Like Enuma Elish and Ex 14*, the Baal Epic utilizes a verb synonymous to ―split‖ (yašuttu; ln. 27a)161 at a pivotal point in the battle narration when Baal destroys Yamm and Nahar. The second (or subsequent) part of both Ex 15* and the Baal Epic relays how the victor of the cosmic battle erects (or has erected for him) a temple wherefrom the D/deity rules as K/king over all.162 T.H. Gaster has observed that the Hebrew Ktlxn rhb (15.17) is the ―very term‖ used in Ugaritic Baal cycle: ẓr nḥlty (‗nt iv.64).163 Consequently, Ex 15* ―is redolent of Canaanite imagery from the myth of Baal‘s triumph over his adversaries (Sea, River) and his building of a temple in which to celebrate his triumphant kingship.‖164
157 The victorious state is described thusly: ―What enemy‘s ris[en] ‘gainst Baal, What foe ‘gainst the Rider of Clouds? Crushed I not El‘s Belov‘d Yam? Destroyed I not El‘s Flood Rabbim? Did I not, pray, muzzle the Dragon? I did crush the crooked serpent, Shalyat [šlyṭ] the seven-headed‖ monster (ANET, 137a). 158 More details pertaining to the temple in the Baal cycle shall be examined in Theologie Kritik. See now Loren R. Fisher and F. Brent Knutson, ―An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit,‖ JNES 28/3 (1969): 157-167. 159 See Dozeman, God At War, 155-156. Indeed, with such a polar bifurcation of Ex 15*‘s structure it is often surmised that vv.13-18 are a later, alien compositional redaction; in the light of the Baal cycle, however (and even in Enuma Elish to an extent), it is reasonable to conclude Ex 15.1b-18, though split in structure, is a cohesive overall unit because both major themes (destruction of water foes, or destruction of foes in water, and enthronement of the victor) are present and operate in tandem in the Ugaritic poem. 160 Bernhard W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament (3rd ed.; Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975), 73: In the poem Yahweh‘s adversaries are Pharaoh and his armies, and the Sea is a passive element under Yahweh‘s control. But later on in the history of the Reed Sea tradition the Sea came to represent the mythical powers of chaos which Yahweh conquers in order to demonstrate his kingship over Israel and the world. According to this reinterpretation, Yahweh‘s victory was not over pharaonic powers of flesh and blood but over Sea, the mythical symbol of the chaos and evil that threaten the creation (Psalms 74:12-17; 77:16-20; Hab. 3). In other words, the victory at the Sea came to be understood as a victory over the Sea. 161 H.L. Ginsberg translates this ―rend‖ (ANET, 131) while M.S. Smith has ―dismembers‖ (The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol.1, 323). 162 Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol.1, 358-361. 163 Gaster, Myths, Legends, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol.1 (Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1981), 241, 387. 164 B.W. Anderson, Contours of Old Testament Theology (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1999), 178. Craigie (Ugarit and the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983], 89) states, the Hebrew poet has taken the symbolic language of creation and adapted it to give expression to his understanding of the meaning of the Exodus. At one level, the Exodus was simply the escape of Hebrews from Egyptian slavery; at another level, it marked a new act of divine creation. Just as Genesis 1 celebrates the creation of the world, so too Exodus 15 celebrates the creation of a new people, Israel. 256
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.2.1.5.3 The Repulsing of the Dragon The extent of correlations between the two accounts of The Repulsing of the Dragon and Ex 15, which is otherwise dubious, can at most be ironic or polemic in nature. J.A. Wilson exposits: ―In Egyptian belief the ship of the sun-god Re made a journey through the skies above by day and the skies below by night. Every night this ship faced the peril of destruction from a demon lurking in the underworld, Apophis.‖165 The primary nexus to Ex 15*, then, is similar to the Akkadian accounts—the destruction of the enemy, though the enemy is a god. Whereas in the above Akkadian and Ugaritic accounts the god foes are split, in the Egyptian (rough) equivalent the enemy is more exponentially decimated by the aggressor; Ra proclaims, ―I have consumed his bones; I have annihilated his soul in the course of every day; I have cut his vertebrae at his neck, severed with a knife which hacked up his flesh and pierced into his hide‖ (ANET, 7a). As a result of his victory over the night sky and its demonic representation, Ra ―shalt be in (14) thy shrine, thou shalt journey in the evening- barque, thou shalt rest in the morning-barque, thou shalt cross thy two heavens in peace‖ (ANET, 7a). It is noteworthy too that the pharaoh shares vicariously in Ra‘s victory (ANET, 7a-c). In another version, J.A. Wilson interprets: ―When the boat of the sun entered the western darkness at evening, it faced the peril of a serpent or dragon, which might destroy the sun… Then it was the function of the god Seth to repel the beast, so that the sun might cross the underworld by night and be reborn in the morning.‖166 The battle between the aforesaid was poised at the top of the mountain of Bakhu (ANET, 12), the highest point and thus the first contact of the sun with the ―underworld‖—in fact, the foe‘s name is ―‗He Who is on the Mountain That He May Overthrow‘‖ (ANET, 12a). In the foregoing two synthetic Egyptian incantations there are some points of relevancy to Ex 15*. First, a demonic foe is defeated by the sun god, Ra. In Exodus YHWH God defeats the pharaoh—who in Egyptian religion was considered a god, even the son of 167 Ra —at the sea. Second, Mwht is a synecdoche for the Reed Sea (Ex 15.5, 8); likewise, the underworld is the abode of the archenemy. Third, the god of the underworld, who threatens to destroy the sun and as a consequence all life, is represented as a serpent or dragon; and in the
165 ANET, 6. See further, E.A. Wallis Budge, Egyptian Religion: Ideas of the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt (New York: Gramercy Books, 1959), 126. 166 ANET, 11d. See Budge, Egyptian Religion, 126-127. 167 Cf. again Davis, ―Ascension-Myth,‖ 165-166; Pinch, Egyptian Mythology, 143. See also Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 95. (―Thus is the king after his coronation, at the first sed-heb festival, make like unto Osiris the god. He has become Osiris on earth. …It is not Osiris the god who sits enthroned in the pavilion before whom the king ‗dances‘: it is the king himself.‖) 257
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Hebrew Bible the pharaoh is (ironically) labelled Nynt, serpent/dragon/sea-monster (Isa 51.9; Ezek 29.3; 32.2).168 Finally, when the sun rose each morning it was envisioned as Ra rebirthed daily; the Israelites, similarly, are a people rebirthed on the opposite bank of the Sea, having passed through the dark domain of death (Ex 15.16b). Therefore, The Repulsing of the Dragon traditions may have functioned as a source for a polemicized reading imbedded in the Song of Moses (Ex 15*). 2.2.1.5.4 Hymn to the Aton The Egyptian Hymn to the Aton bears great resemblance to Psalm 104 which in turn is akin to the creation poem/hymn of Genesis 1.169 Aton, the sun-disk supreme god (a neo Amun-Ra) is hailed as sole creator of the universe (see ANET 369-371), like Elohim of the Hebrew Bible; and both create amalgam entities and features which are described in much the same diction. Thus, J.D. Levenson believes ―we are entitled to speak of a progression from the ‗Hymn to the Aten‘ through Psalm 104 to Genesis 1‖.170 As a consequence of this textual triad encompassing two cultures and religions, a rich cosmogony is fashioned (similar to Enuma Elish of Babylonia). In particular, like the waters being separated in Gen 1 (cf. Ps 104.6, 10), so the Hymn explicates the Aton ―makest a Nile in the underworld‖ and ―hast set a Nile in heaven‖ (ANET 370, 371).171 This cosmogonic reference to the Nile brings us circuitously back to the Hymn of the Nile (see below). Furthermore, there is a strong linguistic connection to the Flood Narrative; for, the springs
(tny(m) of the deep (Mwht) erupt and cover the earth (Gen 7.11), similar to the springs 172 (tyny(m) of the deep (Mwht) mention in Ps 104 (vv.6, 10 irrespectively). The Mwht and Nile- like Reed Sea shall now be addressed. 2.2.1.5.5 Hymn to the Nile The Hymn to the Nile was discussed in the previous chapter from the angle of the river‘s life- giving and death-sourcing qualities and how this interfaces with Ex 2*. At this juncture the
168 A.S. Herbert, The Book of the Prophet Isaiah, Chapters 40-66 (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 100: ―‗Rahab…dragon‘ are alternate words for the chaos monster; cp. Job 26:12; Ps. 89:10.‖ See also Niehr, ―lw@b@ma,‖ TDOT 15:729-730. 169 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 53-65. 170 Levenson, Creation and the Persistence of Evil, 65. So also James E. Atwell, ―An Egyptian Source for Genesis I,‖ JTS 51/2 (2000): 441-477, esp. 460-461. Cf. B.W. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, 211; J. Day, God‟s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the Old Testament (University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 35; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 51. 171 Specifically: ―The Nile in heaven, it is for the foreign peoples And for the beasts of every desert that go upon (their) feet; (While the true) Nile comes from the underworld for Egypt.‖ (ANET, 371) 172 Cf. Robert Alter, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007), 363: ―This equivocation of the waters of the primordial abyss (tehom) covering all of the dry land refers in all likelihood not to the Flood story (though that remains a possibility or perhaps rather a superimposed image) but to creation itself.‖ 258
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Hymn shall be correlated with Ex 15* for germane features which may suggest dependency or at least influence upon the latter. It has hitherto been established that the Nile sources from the ―underworld‖ (ANET, 373x2) which is essentially synonymous with Nun. Nun, furthermore, is the Egyptian equivalent of the Hebrew Mwht—a term which features twice in the Song (Ex 15.5, 8). Thus, even though the bodies of water differ (Nile and Reed Sea), each 173 respective aquatic feature has a common cradle: Nun : Nile :: Mwht : Reed Sea. The disparate watery location is sensible, however, by virtue of the varying theological matrices of each culture. For the Egyptians ―the phenomena of the Nile‘s annual inundation provided…a suggestive imagery for conceiving of the creation, or rather, the emergence of the world.‖174 For the Hebrews, ―Just as Genesis 1 celebrates the creation of the world, so too Exodus 15 celebrates the creation of a new people, Israel‖175 (cf. ch.4 3.3; see further ch.6 2.1). The most informative aspect of comparable Formen (and Guttung) is that both the Hymn to the Nile and Ex 15* are songs. Accordingly, in the Hymn the ―minstrels have sung‖ to the Nile (ANET, 372c), as well as men with the harp and hand (ANET, 373b);176 and in Exodus, correspondingly, both males (Song of Moses and Israelites; Ex 15.1a) and females (Song of Miriam and the Women; Ex 15.20) exult their God at the Sea. 2.2.1.6 The Formengeschichte of The Song(s) at the Sea (Ex 15*) S.E. Gillingham summarizes the Formengeschichte succinctly when she writes, ―Exodus 15 offers a good example of an ancient brief hymn (v. 21 – the Song of Miriam) expanded later on account of some cultic use (parts of vv. 1-16), and adapted for Temple liturgy (vv. 17- 18).‖177 Now, scholars may differ on the demarcation of the verses—in fact, we would say the cultic part is strophe I (vv.1b-12) and the adaptation for liturgy in the Temple that of strophe II (vv.13-18)—nevertheless, the aforesaid process is lucid. Still other Formengeschichte variations may be concocted, but the distinct bifurcation of the larger Song
173 Brandon (Creation Legends, 16 [19-20]) relates: ―An inscription of the time of the pharaoh Osorkon III, regarding the inundation of the Nile of catastrophic dimensions, provides a significant insight into this conception of Nun: ‗Nun came forth from…[and covered] this land to its limits. It stretched to the two borders (of the land) as in the first time…this land was given to its power as (to) the sea…‘‖ 174 Brandon, Creation Legends, 20. 175 Craigie, Ugarit and the Old Testament, 89; cf. N. Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, 202-203. 176 There is sacrifice made unto the Nile for her provisions, moreover (ANET, 373c). 177 Susan E. Gillingham, The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 145. 259
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
purports a later stage of Formen development—all of which is posterior to the brief hymn. And the title of the Song is carryover from the Song of Miriam.178 2.2.2 Gattungenkritik Genre criticism (Gattungenkritik) seeks to ascertain [1] the genre (Guttung) of a textual unit(s) via the comparison of similar analyzed structures from Formenkritik; [2] the life- setting (Sitz im Leben) of the text(s); [3] the text(s)‘s intention/purpose; [4] the formulation of the text(s)‘s genre-history (Gattungsgeschichte). 2.2.2.1 The Gattung of Ex 15.1-19 The piece(s) of poetry comprised in Ex 15.1b-18 has been considered as a couple genres: a victory/taunt song,179 or a thanksgiving hymn,180 or liturgy/litany.181 Semantic overlap invariably exists between these terms;182 nevertheless, genre evaluation is diverse because the Song itself is structurally and thematically bifurcated, as explicated above in Formen. Consequently, the determination of genre for Ex 15.1b-18 must be approached in parts. G.W. Coats has consequently called Ex 15* a ―mixed genre;‖183 and similarly J.W. Wevers and U. Cassuto call it an ―ode,‖184 a term which underscores the erraticism of the poem. Indeed, Ex 15* is lyrically uneven and complex; still, the two strophes of the poetic unit can each be given a genre classification. Strophe I (vv.1b-12) may be labelled a victory song of praise.185 This is substantiated by all the references of YHWH as warrior (15.3a), YHWH as omnipotent (15.1b, 6a, 8, 10, 11), and YHWH as victor in battle (15.1b, 4, 6b, 7a,
12). Further, all these attributes and events of YHWH are packaged in song (√ry#; 15.1a) as praise; thus it is a victory song of praise. Strophe II (vv.13-18) may be classed a prophetic hymn.186 In narrated time, the references of the latter part of the poem are futuristic: peoples hearing of the aforesaid victory
178 F.M. Cross sees Ex 15.21 as ―only the incipit of the hymn, that is, its name…‖ (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 123). However, we view Ex 15.21 as its own song. 179 E.g. Craigie, ―The Song of Deborah,‖ 265; Alan J. Hauser, ―Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5‖ in Direction of Biblical Hebrew Poetry (JSOTSup, 40; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987), 265-284; Brenner, The Song of the Sea, 38. 180 E.g. Childs, Exodus, 250; Fohrer, Introduction, 188; Sigmund Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel‟s Worship, vols.1-2 (trans. D.R. Ap-Thomas; Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1962), 126, 167; M. Buber, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant (New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row Publishers, 1958), 78; Anderson, ―The Song of Miriam,‖ 288. 181 Muilenburg (―A Liturgy,‖ 236 n.3) lists H. Schmidt, G. Beer, and G. von Rad. 182 See e.g. ―victory hymn‖ in Durham, Exodus, 210; Meyers, Exodus (NCBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 116; Cross and Freedman, ―The Song of Miriam,‖ 238. 183 G.W. Coats, Exodus 1-18 (FOTL, IIA. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999), 119; cf. Noth, Exodus, 123. 184 Wevers, Greek Text of Exodus, 227; Cassuto, Exodus, 173. 185 Craigie, ―The Song of Deborah,‖ 265. 186 So Dozeman, God at War, 159. 260
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
at Sea (15.14a), specific people groups who occupy Canaan being awestruck when in proximity to Israel (15.14b-16), and the building of a holy abode, establishing a sacred mountain, erecting a sanctuary wherein YHWH will dwell and from which YHWH will rule eternally (15.13b, 17-18). Furthermore, there are double-entendres (e.g., Sea crossing || Jordan crossing) and multi-fulfilment qualities (e.g., tabernacle and Mt. Sinai || temple and Mt. Zion) to these forth-telling (or forth-singing) events. Consequently, this strophe—in narrated time of Ex (14-)15*—is a hymn of prophecy. To categorize the entire poem, a melding of the above two genres results in a general classification of thanksgiving hymn.187 The worshipper is abundantly thankful for God‘s destruction of the enemy and the deliverance of the people, in retrospect, and, in prospect, for the establishment of the people in a (new) homeland before her enthroned God. Henceforth, the thanksgiving hymn always exalts God for both past and future wonders—all of which are for the benefit of the worshipper of YHWH. 2.2.2.2 The Gattung of Ex 15.20-21 A premier determinant of the genre of Miriam‘s Song is found in the type of instrument used to accompany the lyrics/lyricist. Mention is made in P‘s colophon (v.20) that Miriam took a
Pt@o in hand as did the other women (Mypt) when they danced and sang. Of interest is the 188 definite article affixed to the noun: Pt@oha. The definite article may here be functioning as a possessive, ―her timbrel,‖189 or it may have the thrust of the demonstrative, ―the timbrel,‖190 as in this particular instrument (as opposed to any other). The first grammatical aspect is naturally true, yet can the second aspect also be bore out, and if so what are the implications for genre? The timbrel is associated with singing and dancing throughout the Hebrew Bible;191 yet, often a militaristic victory specifically is in the backdrop. For example, after Jephthah‘s conquest over the Ammonites his daughter meets him dancing and playing the timbrel (Jdg 11.34); and in the wake of David‘s defeat of Goliath the townswomen receive their hero with singing and dancing, and playing of the timbrel (1 Sam 18.6 [cf. 2 Sam 6.5 || 1 Chron
187 Fohrer, Introduction, 188; Childs, Exodus 252. 188 The Pt@o is a ―handheld drum made from animal skin stretched over a circular frame of metal or wood…[that] would be held in the left hand and struck with the palm or fingers of the right hand‖ (Hamilton, Exodus, 234). Cf. BDB, 1074: ―timbrel, tambourine‖; HALOT, 1772: ―hand-drum, tambourine‖; Driver, The Book of Exodus, 140; Houtman, Exodus, vol.2, 294. 189 See Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline (2nd ed.; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1976), §86. 190 Joüon-Muraoka (§35a) notes, ―The Hebrew definite article is an old demonstrative and still retains, in some cases, a weak demonstrative force (cf. §137f.).‖ Cf. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, §84. 191 All occurrences of Pt@o are: Gen 31.27; Ex 15.20; Jdg 11.34; 1 Sam 10.5; 18.6; 2 Sam 6.5; 1 Chron 13.8; Job 21.12; Ps 81.3; 149.3; 150.4; Isa 5.12; 24.8; 30.32; Jer 31.4; Ezek 28.13. 261
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
13.8]).192 In each of these occasions song (and dance) and timbrel playing strike up when the victor is neigh. The same could be said of the scene at the Sea, for Israel was in close proximity to her Warrior God, having ―see[n] the salvation of the LORD‖ (Ex 14.13)! The combined war-victory–dancing–singing–timbrel-playing motif is also the theme of worshippers who invoke God for recapitulated victories throughout select psalms. In Ps
149.3; 150.4 there is mention of timbrel and dance (lwxm) all under the invocation to praise YHWH (v.1 of each psalm); also in Ps 68.26 there are singers and timbrel players.193
Furthermore, there are some provocative allusions in a few psalms containing Pt@o to the exodus event and the warlike struggle for liberation. Ps 81 speaks of the opposition in Egypt (v.5), intimates the bondage of enslavement (v.6), and Israel‘s ―deliver[ance]‖ therefrom
(v.7); Ps 68 foretells how God will again deliver ―from the depths [twlcmm] of the sea‖ (v.23; cf. Ex 15.5: tlwcmb); Ps 149 glorifies God for granting ―the humble with victory‖ (v.4). Just as the examples of timbrel use in the Historical Books highlighted above was in response to the victorious warrior drawing near, so similarly in the cases of the Psalms are the worshippers near to their warrior God, being in the temple. Finally, it is interesting to note the association between one possessing a prophetic role and the use of timbrel. Whereas Miriam is lauded as a prophetess who plays the timbrel at the Sea, a group of prophets prophesy while playing the timbrel (among several other instruments) are part of the events that would see the coronation of Saul as king over Israel (1 Sam 10.5). In fact, in one key prophetical text God declares, ―Again I will build you, and you shall be built, O virgin Israel! Again you shall adorn yourself with timbrels, and shall go forth in the dance of the merrymakers‖ (Jer 31.4). The repertoire of occasions for which timbrel playing takes place, therefore, indicates the affinity for praise in light of militaristic victory (or the desire thereof).194 Consequently, the genre of Miriam‘s lyrical couplet is a victory song of praise.195 2.2.2.3.1 The Sitz im Leben of Ex 15.21 (cf. 1.1.1 & 2.1.1; 2.1.4) The setting of Miriam‘s Song is likely the actual event to which it refers, that is at the Reed Sea shortly after the deliverance.196 Because Miriam‘s Song is independent and antiquated,
192 Brenner (The Song of the Sea, 37) states, ―the arrangement for the victory song of Judith, Jdt 15:12ff, follows a very similar form.‖ 193 Actually this occurrence has the participle form (Ppt; cf. Nah 2.8) of the instrument in question, which connotes its rhythmic beat; see BDB, 1074; HALOT, 1779. 194 See also Meyers, Exodus, 117-119; idem, ―Miriam the Musician‖ in A Feminist Companion (ed. A. Brenner), 207-230. 195 So Coats, Exodus 1-18, 122. See above. 262
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
and because it is a bicolon (a couplet) it could easily be sung in response to the events depicted in the prose account of Ex 14; indeed, due to its brevity (up to) a whole community could instantaneously memorize the song‘s contents. Thus, we can envision the chanting/singing of eight words repeatedly, for an indelible period of time, as an expression of both taunt against the Egyptians and praise unto YHWH.197 The Sitz im Leben of the genre (Gattung) of this victory song, consequently, is celebration in the wake of militaristic success and even likely in general worship contexts. 2.2.2.3.2 The Sitz im Leben of Ex 15.1b-18 (cf. 1.1.2; 1.1.3; 1.1.4; 1.1.5) Miriam‘s Song was memorialized and crystalized in oral tradition until the time whereupon an inspired poetical treatise was composed therefrom, which is now Ex 15.1b-18.198 The Song at the Sea (Ex 15.1b-18) was composed in response to a fuller—retrospective— understanding of the deliverance at the Reed Sea (with)in the larger context of Israel‘s history, and ultimately in the realization of being firmly planted in the Promised Land.199 Further, a terminus a quo dating of Ex 15.1b-18 may be identified after the construction and dedication of the Temple in Jerusalem in order to make intelligible all the contents encapsulated in vv.13-18.200
The righteous abode (#dq hwn; v.13b [cf. v.17b]), inheritance mountain (rhb hlxn; 201 v.17a), established place (Nwkm; v.17a), have several preliminary precursors; e.g., Sinai, Gilgal,202 Shiloh,203 etc.204 In this vein many scholars date Ex 15.1b-18 to relative antiquity
196 B.W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, 72; Julius A. Bewer, Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies: The Literature of the Old Testament (rev. ed.; ed. A.P. Evans; New York: Columbia University Press, 1933), 2; Noth, Exodus, 122; G. Fohrer, berlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: eine Analyse von Ex 1-15 (Berlin: A.Töpelmann, 1964), 111; Lewis S. Hay, ―What Really Happened At The Sea of Reeds?,‖ JBL 84/3 (1964): 401. 197 Contra Anja Klein, ―Hymn and History in Ex. 15: Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea,‖ ZAW 124/3 (2012): 520: ―Ex 15,21b represents an older tradition that has been combined with the narrative account of Ex 14 at a later stage. Praising the glorification of Yhwh (h)g h)g yk), a Sitz im Leben in the temple theology can be assumed.‖ 198 Bewer, Records of Civilization, 2: After ―the original pæan of Miriam‖ a ―much later poet worked it out in more detail, beginning with this same refrain but unfolding its theme at length, and then attributing the whole not to Miriam but to Moses (Ex. 15 1ff.), the greater possibility, as often happens in literary history.‖ Contra Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel‟s Worship, 155: ―The festal psalm put in the mouth of Miriam by a later saga writer…‖ 199 Gaster, Myth, Legend, and Custom, 241: ―The song employs pastoral metaphors, and is therefore the product of the later settled life, not of the earlier desert days.‖ Cf. also Buber, Moses, 78: ―At a later time the song of Miriam gradually, presumably first in the days of Samuel, and afterwards in the days of Solomon, was expanded into a long hymn.‖ 200 Stuart (Hebrew Meter, 79) writes, ―It is our assumption that all pre-monarchic Old Testament poetry [such as Ex 15*] would have been either composed or preserved in the north owing to the location of the central sanctuary there prior to the time of David.‖ 201 Millard C. Lind, Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel (Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1980), 50. Contra Von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch, and other essays (trans. E.W. Trueman Dicken; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966), 11. Cf. Ps 68.18. 202 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 139, 142. Cf. Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 144-150. 263
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
ranging from as early as the thirteenth205 or twelfth206 century to the tenth or ninth centuries BCE.207 However, the aforementioned cultic sites all find full culmination in the Jerusalem Temple under Solomon.208 J. Day rightly observes, ―the one other place in the Old Testament where the expression māḵōn lešiḇteḵā [of Ex 15.17] is employed of an earthly sanctuary is in connection with the Temple on Mt Zion (1 Kings 8:13; cf. 2 Chron. 6:2; a quotation from the book of Jashar – cf. LXX and Vulgate),‖209 hence this location is an interpretative crux. Thus, ―if [Ex 15] v. 17 refers to the Jerusalem Temple,‖ Day continues, ―the extremely early dates posited for Ex. 15:1-18…cannot be maintained, and a tenth century date becomes the terminus a quo.‖210 Indeed, posterior dates ranging from the eighth or seventh211 centuries BCE to even later still212 are also dubious.
203 Psalm 78.54 ―describe[s] the initial central sanctuary in the land, which is later identified in verse 60 as Shiloh. This indicates that Exod 15 was already in circulation at the time of the composition of Ps 78 and that it was being interpreted as legitimizing a sanctuary other than the one in Jerusalem‖ (Russell, Song of the Sea, 120). 204 Noth (Exodus, 126) maintains, ―we are not to understand the word ‗sanctuary‘ in v.17b as a single holy place, which would compel us to think of Jerusalem, but we are to see the whole land, because it is the possession of Yahweh and the ‗abode of God‘, as a holy realm.‖ 205 Albright, ―The Psalm of Habakkuk,‖ 5; David Noel Freedman, ―Archaic Forms in Early Hebrew Poetry,‖ ZAW 72 (1960): 101-107. Cf. Linder, ―Das Siegeslied,‖ 43-77. 206 ―The date of the Exodus can be fixed from the reference in the Song of the Sea to the four nations which are described as observers of the crossing of the sea and the annihilation of the Egyptian chariot force (Exod 15:14-15). …These four—Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Canaan—can only have coexisted in their established territories during the 12th century B.C.‖ (D.N. Freedman, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry [Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980], 177 [178]) See also Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 124: ―all the evidence points to a premonarchic date for the Song of the Sea, in the late twelfth or early eleventh century B.C.‖ Cf. Russell, Song of the Sea, 73; D.A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 155; Lind, Yahweh is a Warrior, 47. 207 Cross and Freedman (―The Song of Miriam,‖ 240): ―terminus ad quem in the tenth century B.C.‖ So Stephen C. Russell, Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals (BZAW, 403; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 145. 208 Houtman, Exodus, vol.2, 291; Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel‟s Worship, 155. Cf. Mikva, Midrash vaYosha where the Midrashic interpretation/declaration of Ex 15.17 is ―Plant them in a planting that is never uprooted and, when You bring down the Jerusalem that was built in the heavenly spheres, let it never be destroyed‖ (233). Cf. also Ps 74.2. 209 John Day, God‟s Conflict, 99. Day ―would also note that the apparent statement of this verse that Yahweh would plant the people in the Temple – and not simply on the mountain (besides miqdāš, note that māḵōn lešiḇteḵā in 1 Kings 8:13…is explicitly used of the Temple building and not simply Jerusalem) – may be accepted, since this is paralleled in Ps. 92:14 (ET 13), where the righteous are ‗planted in the house of the Lord, they flourish in the courts of our God (Cf. Ps. 52:10, ET 8)‖ (ibid.). 210 Day, God‟s Conflict, 100. Others maintain the more general timeframe ―pre-exilic;‖ e.g., Bernard Gosse, ―Le texte d‘Exode 15,1-21 dans la rédaction Biblique,‖ BZ 37/3 (1993): 271. S.-M. Kang, (Divine War, 204) detects how the phrase hmxlm #y) hwhy (Ex 15.4) in particular ―was primarily a conventional idea on the time of the Davidic kingdom like that found in the other empires of the ancient Near East‖; hence a tenth century dating for the large song. 211 Leuchter, ―Eisodus as Exodus,‖ 329, 338. Cf. Marc Rozelaar, ―The Song of the Sea (Exodus XV, 1b-18),‖ VT 2/3 (1953): 226. 212 Houtman (Exodus, vol.2, 243) sets the terminus ad quem at ―the time of the Exile (Neh. 9:11 assumes familiarity with the song).‖ Paul Haupt (―Moses‘ Song of Triumph,‖ AJSL 20/3 [1904]: 152) proffers post-exilic. Adolf Bender (―Das Lied Exodus 15,‖ ZAW 23 [1903]: 47) supposes c. 450 BCE. 264
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
In the setting of the Jerusalem Temple together with the influential Baal Epic where the waters subjugation–temple erection motifs are combined serve as the impetus for the ancient poet to write Ex 15.1b-18 (again, stemming from the oral tradition of the Song of Miriam).213 The Song at the Sea thus relates the miracle at the Sea with poetic liberality in the first strophe (vv.1b-12), and in the second strophe (vv.13-18) it communicates what the saving experience was ultimately for, the final destination and realization that began at the exodus. This thanksgiving psalm then became a piece of liturgy in the cult, though never becoming part of the literary setting of the Psalter.214 The Song at the Sea (Ex 15.1b-18) nevertheless did occupy a place of liturgy in the observance of the Passover festival.215 Alternatively, some posit a temple setting in an autumn festival;216 however, ―[i]n its present context, and originally,‖ as Cross argued, ―it was associated with the cultus of the old spring New Year‘s festival.‖217 Indeed, the Passover was celebrated in the spring, which for Israel was the New Year (Ex 12.2, 18; Lev 23.5; Num 9.1-5). Henceforward, during the Persian period, while the Ex 1-15* literary block was being composed, nP incorporated the Song at the Sea into the Exodus narrative;218 this positioning is the both in close proximity to the Passover story (ch.12-13) and after the sea crossing (Ex 14) to punctuate the narrative block (see further 2.3 below).219
213 John D. W. Watts (―The Song of the Sea–Ex. XV,‖ VT 7/4 [1957]: 380) summarizes: This amphictyonic hymn seems then to have been adapted to worship in Jerusalem‘s royal temple by the addition of a strophe (or substitution of a few lines) and combination with other bits of liturgical material. Toward the end of the Southern Kingdom changes in ritual form forced still another adaptation to make it suitable to the mouth of Moses, and this has become the basis for our literary preservation (Ex. xv) of this very old and much-used hymn. 214 See Thomas Römer, ―Extra-Pentateuchal Biblical Evidence for the Existence of a Pentateuch? The Case of the ‗Historical Summaries,‘ Especially in the Psalms‖ in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research (FAT, 78; eds. T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 471-488. 215 Brenner, The Song of the Sea, 18; Johannes Pederson, ―Passahfest und Passahlegende,‖ ZAW 52 (1934): 161-175. Contra Day, God‟s Conflict, 101. See ch.4 §3. 216 Muilenburg, ―A Liturgy,‖ 236; Day, God‟s Conflict, 101 (n.53), cf. 91; Coats, ―The Song of the Sea,‖ 9-10. 217 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 123: We must posit two New Year‘s festivals in the early cult of Israel, both covenantal-renewal festivals. The autumn festival, falling on the New Year common to Canaan and Egypt, in Israel became the great feast of the era of kingship, both in Jerusalem and Beth‘el. The spring New Year, with its ultimately Mesopotamian connections, appears to have been the time of the major festival at the old league sanctuaries of Gilgal and Shiloh, a covenant festival which virtually disappeared during the monarchy as a national pilgrimage feast, until the archaizing reforms of Josiah (2 Kings 23:22; cf. 2 Chron. 30:1- 26). The associations of the Gilgal rites with the spring, with the covenant, with the sea crossing and the ‗ritual conquest,‘ seem very clear indeed. 218 See Hans Strauß, ―Das Meerlied des Mose–ein »Siegeslied« Israels? (Bemerkungen zur theologischen Exegese von Ex 15,1-19.20f),‖ ZAW 97 (1985): 103-109. 219 James W. Watts sees ―Exod 15.1-21…as the conclusion to the exodus narratives (chs. 1-14) which had become the reading for Passover‖; that is, ―Exodus 1-15 in its final form was adopted for liturgical use, 265
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Deutero-Isaiah, a contemporary prophet of the (Medio-)Persian Empire, may have inspired the composition of Ex 1-14 and the corroborative Song(s), Ex 15*; for, the prophet evokes the sea crossing defeat of Pharaoh in the current equivalency of Babylon‘s demise in the following oracle:220 Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in days of old, the generations of long ago. Was it not thou that didst cut Rahab in pieces, that didst pierce the dragon? Was it not thou that didst dry up the sea, the waters of the great deep; that didst make the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed to pass over? And the ransomed of the LORD shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. (Isa 51.9-11) Key terminological intersection between Isa 51.9-10 and Ex 15* is copious (as Appendix D 221 x2 x2 visually demonstrates), including the vocabulary hwhy (vv.9, 11 + Ex 15. 1b, 3 , 6 , 11,
16, 17, 18, 21); z( (v.9 + Ex 15.2, 13); ((w)rz (v.9 + Ex 15.16); Mwht (v.10 + Ex 15.5, 8); My x2 x2 x2 (v.10 + Ex 15. 1b, 4 , 8, 10); Mym/ym (v.10 + Ex 15.8, 10); rb( (v.10 + Ex 15.16 ); l)g (v.10 + Ex 15.13). Furthermore, though v.11 is not oft cited by scholars as part of the 222 corollary saying, Isa 51.11 shares some conceptual affinities with Ex 15: hdp ≈ hnq (Ex
15.16); txm#w hnrb ≈ hry#) (Ex 15.1b); Nwyc ≈ Ktlxn rhb + #dqm (Ex 15.17). Beyond the terminological and conceptual congruity between Isa 51.9-11 and Ex 15* the two passages share a harmonious theologoumenon.223 J. Day cogently interprets, saying, here we have a blending of God‘s victory over chaos at the creation, at the Exodus and in the coming deliverance from the Babylonian exile. Rahab is both the monster defeated at creation and Egypt at the time of the Exodus and also, by implication, it
which is reflected in the placement and role of the Song of the Sea.‖ (Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative [JSOTSup, 139; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992], 61) 220 Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 144) asserts: ―The Song of the Arm of Yahweh in Isaiah 51 is a superb example of this new synthesis, in which the old Exodus is described in terms of the Creation myth and in turn becomes the archetype of a new Exodus.‖ 221 Jeremy M. Hutton has studied the linguistic and structural coherence between Isa 51.9-11 and KTU 1.3 III 38-46 in ―Isaiah 51:9-11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies,‖ JBL 126/2 (2007): 271-303. 222 Isa 51.9-11 is a self-contained pericope as demonstrated by the sandwiching between two Masoretic in BHS. For a treatment on this pericope‘s structure, see Fredrick Carlson Holmgren, ―Chiastic Structure in Isaiah 51:1-11,‖ VT 19/2 (1969) 196-201. 223 Childs, Isaiah (OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 403; Herbert, Prophet Isaiah, Chapters 40-66, 101; Christopher R. North, The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary to Chapters XL-LV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964), 212. 266
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
may be argued, the thought is extended to Babylon at the time of the prophet himself. The return from exile in Babylon is both a new creation and a new Exodus.224 Thus, Deutero-Isaiah prophesied the end of the exile not only in analogous terms of the aftermath of the Genesis Flood (as demonstrated in ch.2) but Deutero-Isaiah also portrays the end of exile and the dawn of liberation in terms of a neo-exodus.225 Abundant and tumultuous waters are the most potent and thorough demonstration of termination of powers and eras, and the subsequent restoration or dawning of a new era.226 This is what Deutero-Isaiah prophesies regarding exile just as surely as it happened at creation, the Flood, and the exodus, i.e. sea crossing (cf. Isa 43). Furthermore, it is likely that Deutero-Isaiah‘s prophecy of 51.9-11 informed the sons of Asaph to compose Ps 77 (probably not vice-versa). Ps 77 is an exilic song;227 and it bears the most resemblance to Ex 15* of the entire Psalter (see Appendix E).228 In the latter part of Ps 77 the psalmist ―call[s] to mind the deeds of the LORD‖, the ―wonders of old‖ (v.12 [ET v.11]). Subsequently, the psalmist rehearses the exodus tradition encapsulated in vv.14-21 [ET 13-20],229 which reads: Thy way, O God, is holy. What god is great like our God? Thou art the God who workest wonders, who hast manifested thy might among the peoples. Thou didst with thy arm redeem thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah When the waters saw thee, O God, when the waters saw thee, they were afraid, yea, the deep trembled. The clouds poured out water; the skies gave forth thunder; thy arrows flashed on every side. The crash of thy thunder was in the whirlwind; thy lightnings lighted up the
224 Day, God‟s Conflict, 91-92. Blenkinsopp (Isaiah 40-55 [AB, 19A; New York: Doubleday, 2002], 333) states similarly, ―The references to Egypt as Rahab (Isa 30:7; Ps 87:4) and the Dragon (Ezek 29:3; 32:2) bring in the Sea by association, and the Sea (Yamm) in its turn conjures up the miraculous crossing of the Papyrus Sea during the escape from Egypt (Exod 15:8).‖ Cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol.1, 178; Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel‟s Worship, 154; Gunkel, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12 (trans. K. William Whitney Jr.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006), 22. 225 ―It would appear that the Combat Myth had particular appeal to the exiles. It allowed them to acknowledge that their world had been shattered without losing their faith in Yahweh as the supreme ruler of heaven and earth. Their own suffering was part of the cosmic struggle between creation and noncreation, between Yahweh God and the monster of chaos, between good and evil.‖ (Batto, Slaying the Dragon, 83-84) 226 See Herbert G. May, ―Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm, ‗Many Waters‘,‖ JBL 74/1 (1955): 9-21. 227 Horst Dietrich Preuss, Old Testament Theology, vol. 2, 264; Russell, Song of the Sea, 191 n.10. Hans-Joachim Kraus, Psalms 60-150: A Commentary (trans. Hilton C. Oswald; Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1993), 114: ―an exilic or postexilic time.‖ Contra Helen G. Jefferson (―Psalm LXXVII,‖ VT 13/1 [1963]: 91) who maintains it has a ―pre-exilic date.‖ 228 Russell (Song of the Sea, 113-130) has argued that some of the Psalms of Asaph, Ps 74, 77, 78 in particular, are inspired the Song of Ex 15*. We have already cited Ps 77 in 2.2.1.1 of this chapter. 229 Marvin E. Tate (Psalms 51-100 [WBC, 20; Dallas, Tex.: Word Books Publishers, 1990], 272) sees Ps 77.9-21 as possessing a chiastic structure: A (vv.9-10), B (v.11), C (vv.12-14), B` (vv.15-16), A` (vv.17-21). 267
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
world; the earth trembled and shook. Thy way was through the sea, thy path through the great waters; yet thy footprints were unseen. Thou didst lead thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.
The incomparable exaltation of God in Ps 77.14b-15a (h#( l)h ht) Myhl)k lwdg l)-ym
)lp) is like that of Ex 15.11: )lp h#( tlht )rwn #dqb rd)n hkmk ym hwhy Ml)b hkmk-ym.
The theological statement of Ps 77.16a (Km( (wrzb tl)g) harkens back to Ex 15.16 (…K(wrz tynq wz-M( rb(y-d() and Ex 15.13a (tl)g wz-M( Kdsxb tyxn). Ps 77.17 refers to Mwht, as in
Ex 15.5, 8. Just as the waters writhe/anguish (√lyx) before God in Ps 77.17a, so also are the inhabitants of Philistia gripped with writhing/anguishing (√lyx; Ex 15.14b) because of what 230 YHWH is doing/has done. Whereas in the psalm the abyss and the earth quakes (√zgr; 231 vv.17b, 19b) because of God, so the peoples of Ex 15.14a quake (√zgr). Finally, both passages speak of God leading (√hxn; Ps 77.21 + Ex 15.13) his people, the human agency of whom are Moses and Aaron (Ps 77.21 + Ex 15.1, 20). In sum, ―Psalm 77 appears indebted to Exodus 15, employing the imagery of the right hand, the way through the waters, and the divine guiding of God‘s people (vv.17, 19, 20).‖232 Therefore, both prophetic and psalmic traditions are saturated with the exodus event, the liberation theme.233 2.2.2.4 Intention/Purpose of The Song(s) of the Sea (Ex 15*) The purpose of the Song(s) at the Sea within the literary and experiential context of Passover amalgamates in the New Year‘s festival‘s cultural and doctrinal aspects of Israel and neighbouring peoples. ―Passover was celebrated in spring, at the time of the creation of a new order, and the hymn was uses mythological motifs to create a sense of renewed hope for the future.‖234 At the time of the integration of the Song(s) into the Ex 1-15* complex the Hebrews were typologically experiencing a re-splitting of the Sea for a new exodus, as proclaimed by Deutero-Isaiah specifically; and this new exodus was conveyed in mythical
230 Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 136 n.83) posits, ―‗[w]rithe‘ makes clear the dragon-like form of ‗waters,‘ i.e. Yamm. Cf. Psalm 29:8.‖ 231 Here ―the subterranean primeval water are in terror before the God manifested in theophany. There is an association with Exod 15:5 and 8, but at the same time there is difference, for in Exodus 15 water is the medium and Egypt the enemy, while here the primeval waters are the direct opponents‖ (Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger, Psalm 2, A Commentary on Psalms 51-100 [trans. Linda M. Maloney; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2005], 279). 232 Patterson, ―The Song of Redemption,‖ 459. Cf. John S. Kselman, ―Psalm 77 and the Book of Exodus,‖ JANES 15 (1983): 51-58. 233 See Houtman, Exodus, vol.1: Chapters 1:1–7:13 (HCOT; trans. Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra; Kampen: Kok, 1993), 198-201. 234 Gillingham, The Poems, 143. Cf. also Houtman (Exodus, vol.2, 248) who mentions how ―[t]he song has become part of the readings in the Jewish synagogue on the seventh day of the Passover festival.‖ 268
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
terms and imagery in order to capture not only the original exodus but also the grandeur of the event by harkening back to creation as well, and even the Flood (cf. Isa 54.9-10). This religious outlook is akin to Babylonian culture. Enuma Elish was liturgically recited at the Babylonian New Year‘s, or akîtu, festival.235 This festival re-enacts and rehearses the annual enthronement ceremony of Marduk. The spring/New Year is the same timeframe for both Israelite and Babylonia (and Ugaritic–Canaanite) cultures to celebrate the renewal of the cosmos. For Israel there is a polemical attribute to this festival or ceremony236—because YHWH is the eternal King, King forever (Ex 15.18).237 Therefore, the Song of the Sea (Ex 15*) is, in part, the Hebrew response to the popular political–theological notion of annual enthronement of gods—YHWH never ceases to be enthroned; YHWH is the eternal King because of the salvations/deliverances performed for Israel. 2.2.2.5 The Gattungsgeschichte of The Song(s) of the Sea (Ex 15*) The history or growth of the genres encapsulated in Ex 15* can be outlined as follows. It was birthed from Miriam‘s victory song (v.21b). Later it was elaborated upon with a two part poem of mixed genre, the former (vv.1b-12) a praise type like Miriam‘s song and the later (vv.13-18) a (prophetic) exaltation. The collective genre of the longer song is characteristic of thanksgiving hymns. This thanksgiving hymn (vv.1b-18) in juxtaposition with the victory song (v.21b) creates the response of thanksgiving due to the victory or salvation/deliverance of God. The growth of Ex 15* spans from the exodus to the monarchy, and was writ at the end of the exile to early post-exilic timeframe.238 Consequently, the contents of Ex 15* (in its context) and the very salvation/deliverance experience(s) performed by YHWH is a timeless reality which God‘s people are thankful for, yearn for, and by which are identified.
235 Brandon, Creation Legend, 92-93, 146-147; Cf. Richard J. Clifford, The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), 78. 236 J. Weingreen (From Bible to Mishna: The Continuity of Tradition [Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976], 125) elucidates that in prose–poetry parallel accounts, such as Ex 14 and 15*, ―the prose version was designed for the purpose of instruction, while the verse form was intended for public recital on special religious occasions.‖ Ex 14 ―is written in a graphic, though simple, narrative form and seems to have been intended for study and teaching.‖ Ex 15* ―is composed in the form of an epic poem. …This composition was clearly designed for dramatic presentation in public and not for private study.‖ 237 Mowinckel (The Psalms in Israel‟s Worship, 187) claims ―Yahweh will reign as ‗eternal king‘ (Isa. [sic, Ps] 29.10; Ex. 15.18)—[is] an idea which strictly speaking contradicts the notion of his annual ‗coming‘ and enthronement.‖ This point is erroneous, however. Just because something is alluded to does not mean the writers is utilizing the reference in exactly the same manner—they might mean it ironically, facetiously, or polemically. Said employment is the manner used in this context. So B.W. Anderson, From Creation to New Creation, 226. 238 Watts, Psalm and Story, 60-61: the Song ―traverses centuries to unify Israel‘s past and present in praise of Yahweh. The emphasis on Yahweh alone is perhaps a reminder (in or after the exilic period?) that the absence of a Moses or a king does not affect God‘s ability to deliver his people.‖ 269
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.3 Komposition/Redaktionskritik The exegesis comprising Komposition/Redaktionskritik is [1] to discern the methods whereby textual fragments have been moulded together into the final-form to portray its literary tapestry; [2] to scrutinize the religio-theological influences at play in the compositional and redactional process(es); [3] to evaluate the Sitz in der Literatur of Ex 15* in its larger literary complex. 2.3.1 Non-P as Composer and Redactor of a Priestly Grundschicht P, as the Grundschicht, wrote a brief sea crossing chronicle (Ex 14.1-4, 8, 9b, 10*, 15*, 16*, 18, 21*, 22-23, 26, 27aα, 28-29), and then brought the narrative to a crescendo with the Song of Miriam (15.21b). Having penned some transitional phrases (15.20-21a), the song itself, as a longstanding piece of oral tradition hymnody, was quoted by P. Thus the literary activity may be schematized as follows:
Song A 15.21b P 15.20-21a
P wrote Ex 1-15* in or near Jerusalem at approximately the mid-sixth century BCE (see ch.2 2.2.2.2.1).239 At a later stage, nP composited an account supplementing the sea crossing narrative (Ex 14.5-7, 9a, 10*, 11-14, 15*, 16*, 17, 19-20, 21*, 22, 24-25, 27*, 30-31).240 Next, nP redacted a prosaic frame, both a beginning and ending colophon, for the Song at the Sea and incorporated it therein. This compositional and redactional activity may be schematised thusly:
Song B 15.1b-18 nP 15.1a 15.19
Non-P composited/redacted Ex 1-15* in Bethel probably circa the late-sixth century BCE (see ch.2 2.2.2.2.2; cf. ch.3 2.2.2.2).241
239 This point was not mentioned earlier because in section 2.2 the date of the Song of Miriam (15.21b) was at question. 240 Indeed, as Carr similarly observes (Reading the Fractures, 119), ―the P version of the Reed Sea crossing is an almost complete, parallel, alternatively conceptualized account of an event also reported in the non-P material with which it is now interwoven (Exodus 14).‖ 241 This data was not discussed earlier, for in section 2.2 the dating of the Song of Moses (15.1b-18) was at hand and not nP‘s appropriation thereof. Also, as Schmid notes (―The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus‖ in A Farewell to the Yahwist? (eds., T.B. Dozeman and K. Schmid, 35) ―J in Genesis and J in Exodus are different J‘s‖ and this explains the different editorial activity times amongst the biblical texts exegeted here, for the nP redactional activity in Ex 1-2ff differs from the prior nP compositional activity. 270
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Non-P, moreover, placed the long redacted song before P‘s quoted song, yielding the current final-form of the text; this positioning was done for a variety of reasons. First, the colophon mentioning Moses and the Israelites (15.1a) segues nicely from nP‘s last statement of the Crossing: ―…and they [i.e., the Israelites] believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses‖ (14.31b);242 thus the three parties are harmonious in each verse: YHWH, Moses, and the Israelites. Second (and similarly), due to the seamless transition achieved, nP gave the Song of Moses anterior priority in the literary block of Ex 14-15. The larger/male community and longer song is set in first significance, leading a list of similar items (songs), as it were. Third, nP‘s closing colophon (v.19) both summarizes the preceding and parrots P‘s verbiage enough to make a near seamless resumption-transition into P‘s literature (Ex 15.20-21a); also, since P had prefaced the Song of Miriam with a colophon, the consecutive prose(s) would again provide transitional fluidity. Finally, the brief song of Miriam would serve for nP (by placing his material before P‘s) the function of a recapping poetic declaration. The foregoing is therefore the rationale and procedure of the compositional and redactional stages of P and nP. Though the posterior positioning of Miriam‘s song is a source of much debate and controversy (especially in relation to gender issues),243 its placement there is not without literary artistry. On a Komposition/Redaktionskritik level, when the Songs are viewed in the final-form, while overlooking the prosaic colophons, Ex 15* attests a lyrical inclusio where
Myb hmr wbkrw sws h)g h)g-yk hwhyl √hr# both commences and concludes the poetical unit; consequently, the balance of Moses‘ Song is sandwiched within this frame, giving emphasis to both the (near) verbatim brackets and the content therein.244 Such a literarily artistic device would not otherwise be present if the ordering of the songs were inverted; had Miriam‘s Song preceded Moses‘,245 in other words, the near verbatim colon would be consecutively aligned and no lyrical inclusio would exist. Hence it seems the redactor‘s (i.e., nP‘s) intention was to
242 See Houtman, Exodus, vol.2, 245. 243 See e.g., Alice Bach, ―With a Song in her Heart: Listening to Scholars Listening for Miriam‖ in A Feminist Companion (ed. A. Brenner), 243-254. 244 So Russell, Song of the Sea, 17. 245 There is a ―consistent difficulty,‖ observes J.L. Kugel, regarding ―the meaning of the Hebrew word hn(, which conceals two historically different roots, the one corresponding to Arabic , the other to ; the first means, in Hebrew, ‗answer,‘ the second, ‗sing.‘ What is particularly confusing is that the second word meant ‗sing‘ in (among others) the specific sense of ‗to lead antiphony‘ (see Exod. 15:21); that is, the leader sang hn( (sense 2) and the chorus answered wn( (sense 1)!‖ (The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History [New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981], 116 n.43). 271
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
push Miriam‘s song to the end of the textual unit not because of its inferior composer or composition complex but in order to create a linguistic frame and a symmetrical whole.246 2.3.2 Religio-theological Factors of Redactional Composition The religio-theological factors of the aforesaid composition/redaction process of both P and nP shall now be analyzed, for each stratum was motived to quote the song it did. 2.3.2.1 Religio-theological Factors of the P Grundschicht 2.3.2.1.1 Victory–Overthrow The brevity of Miriam‘s Song makes the identification of the religio-theological impulse straightforward. The Priestly segments of the Ex 14* chronicle stress how God split the sea and both Israelites and Egyptians entered into the midst of the sea (vv.16b, 22a, 23b, 27b, 29). However, only Israel passes through the sea unharmed unto life (Ex 14.29), whereas the Egyptians are engulfed by the sea and die. Therefore, Ex 15.21b, the Song of Miriam, proclaims how YHWH has overthrown (√hmr) the enemy and thus hails YHWH as Victor (h)g h)g). N. Lohfink has argued persuasively that in the entire corpora of P(G) war is an absent motif.247 The events at the Reed Sea, where war comes closest, is actually ―transformed by divine initiative into something quite different‖,248 namely God‘s judgment or punishment.249 This position stands in contrast to nP compositions where war is present unbridled. 2.3.2.2 Religio-theological Factors of nP Redactional Composition 2.3.2.2.1 Deliverance Deliverance is a religio-theological element in both halves of the Song incorporated into the nP redactional composition. The first Strophe (vv.1b-12) tells of deliverance through the Sea, and the second Strophe (vv.13-18) depicts deliverance to the sanctuary and mountain. Stated differently, the Song relays how YHWH delivers Israel from inside Egypt to outside of it, and how YHWH delivers the Israelites from away from his sanctuary and mountain to the presence of them.
246 Other non-linear views of the Song(s) at the Sea include variations of an antiphonal refrain (Song of Miriam) at various points throughout/during the Song of Moses. See e.g., Cassuto, Exodus, 182; Propp, Exodus 1-18, 548; Russell, Song of the Sea, 38-39; J. Gerald Janzen, ―Song of Moses, Song of Miriam: Who is Seconding Whom?‖ in A Feminist Companion (ed. A. Brenner), 187-199. Related to the above is the notion of the pluperfect function of the Song of Miriam after Ex 14*; see e.g., Richard D. Patterson, ―Victory at Sea: Prose and Poetry in Exodus 14-15,‖ BS 161/641 (2004): 51. 247 Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, 195-209; so S.-M. Kang, Divine War, 125. 248 Lohfink, Theology of the Pentateuch, 201. 249 O‘Rourke Boyle, ―‗In the Heart of the Sea‘,‖ 26: ―Judgment is precisely what happens in the heart of the sea. By the provocation of the divine breath counter-moving the waters into chaos, rather than creation (Gen. 1:2), Pharaoh‘s army drowns.‖ 272
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.3.2.2.2 De-creation–Re-Creation, or New Creation (cf. 1.2.3) Another nP religio-theological factor of the composition is what may be called a movement from de-creation to re-creation, and this is (also) displayed from Strophe I to Strophe II respectively. The de-creation is naturally depicted in the watery destruction part of the Song.
Mwht, that de-creative upwelling, is referenced twice (Ex 15.5, 8); and from said source arises the enemies demise (descending into, covering up, drowning, sinking in)—even the Cr) swallows up the Egyptians (Ex 15.12). The re-creation theological vantage is seen most vividly in the imagery of purchasing and planting in the second part of the Song. The dual, emphatic construct hwhy Km( rb(y-d( 250 tynq wz-M( rb(y-d( is deeply suggestive of a new start (v.16b). Subsequently, this newly 251 purchased people are brought in and planted (√(+n; v.17) in YHWH‘s property, the mountain of (his) inheritance. In a similar fashion YHWH himself establishes a sanctuary for his abode. Thus, both Israel and her God are relocating—indeed transplanting—for a new future together. 2.3.2.2.3 YHWH as Warrior, Leader, and King Several theological statements are made about YHWH in the Song of Moses. One is that YHWH is a man of war or a warrior (v.3);252 this is a concept familiar to the DtrH corpora,253 a textual basis that served as a source and inspiration for the nP compositor/ redactor (see ch.3 2.2). Another theological statement in the Song is YHWH is King (v.18);254 this declaration is also found most emphatically in the Psalter—psalms which have been inspired in part by the Song of Moses. Still another theological portrait of YHWH in the Song of Moses is Leader 255 (√hxn; v.13 [+√lhn] ); this is a quality that nP develops himself in the exodus event narrative (Ex 13.17, 21), and is rehearsed by the sons of Asaph in a few psalms (Ps 73.24; 77.21; 78.14, 53, 72) and Ezra in his confession (Neh 9.12, 19).256 Accordingly, as M.C. Lind reviews, the ―Song of the Sea climaxes with…Yahweh the warrior becom[ing] Yahweh the
250 See Bernhard W. Anderson, Creation versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1967), 37 (cf. 50). 251 Cf. the naturalistic usages of this verb in the Tetrateuch alone: Gen 2.8; 9.20; 21.33; Lev 19.23; Num 24.6; cf. also other metaphoric usages of (+n in Ps 44.3; 80.9, 16; Isa 5.2, 7; Ezek 36.36; Amos 9.15. 252 See Craigie, The Problem of War, esp. 33-43; Lind, Yahweh is a Warrior, 49-54. 253 See Josh 17.1; Jdg 20.17; 1 Sam 17.33; 2 Sam 17.8 (Ezek 39.20). 254 Ps 10.16; 29.10; 93.1; 95.3; 96.10; 97.1; 99.1. 255 Cf. Ps 23.2; 31.4; Isa 40.11; 49.10. 256 Cf. also Ps 5.9; 23.3; 27.11; 31.4; 43.3; 61.3; 67.5; 107.30; 139.10, 24; 143.10; Isa 57.18; 58.11. 273
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
king‖ and indeed ―Yahweh‘s kingship may also be reflected…by his place as leader of Israel.‖257 2.3.3 Sitz in der Literatur: Ex 15* in the Primary History (Gen–2Kgs) Having gauged the assemblage of incorporated poetry into the P and nP authorial/ compositional strands and having surmised the theological impulses thereof, we turn to the issue of the placement of Ex 15* within the larger contexts of various literary blocks. 2.3.3.1 Ex 14 and Ex 15 Ex 15* is the poetic counterpart to its prosaic version, Ex 14.258 Ex 14 and 15* are not the only prosaic–poetic combination of the same account in the Hebrew Bible; other examples include Jdg 4 and 5 and 1 Sam 1 and 2, though only the prior is an example of warfare.259 Due to the differences of narrative and song variations in expression of content ought not to be overanalyzed, but rather expected,260 for poetry is a non-literal, imagery flexible account of a straightforward record of prose. In every case in the Hebrew Bible, the poetry is posterior and the prose anterior.261 Why? J.W. Watts purports many poems in the Hebrew Bible ―occupy thematically climactic and structurally crucial positions in larger blocks of narrative, or whole books.‖262 M.S. Smith calls ―[p]oems in narrative contexts…a sort of punctuation point to events.‖263 The function or goal, argues Watts, is that ―hymnic poetry in this position invites readers to join in the celebration‖,264 also to throw a ―theophanic emphasis‖ ―to point out to readers God‘s underlying knowledge and control of events, thus turning the stories into examples of how
257 Lind, Yahweh is a Warrior, 50, 59-60. So also Russell, Song of the Sea, 43: ―The Song of the Sea connects important theological portraits of God. Yhwh is proclaimed to be a warrior, shepherd, and king. These three titles overlap and enrich each other…‖ 258 Houtman (Exodus, vol.2, 233) sees Ex 13.17–15.21as ―a coherent unit.‖ 259 Another example from the Apocrypha that is war specific is Judith 15 and 16. Cf. James W. Watts, Psalm and Story, 14-17; cf. Russell‘s discussion concerning the analogous phenomenon of Piye Stela in Song of the Sea, 132. 260 For genre confusion cf. Baden, ―Identifying the Original Stratum of P: Theoretical and Practical Considerations‖ in The Strata of the Priestly Writings (eds. S. Shectman and J.S. Baden), 18: ―Close inspection reveals that the details of the crossing of the sea in this poem do not match the J narrative in which the poem has been transmitted – or, one should add, the P narrative of the same event.‖ Such is not the purpose of poetry! 261 The only major deviation from this prose–poem arrangement is the creation accounts of Gen 1.1– 2.4a and Gen 2.4b-25, albeit there are a host of reasons and complexities surrounding this example. 262 Watts, Psalm and Story, 11. 263 Smith, Exodus, 64. 264 Watts, Psalm and Story, 187. Similarly, Gaster (Myth, Legend, and Custom, 241) annotates, In ancient times…the majority of people could not read. Traditional tales and sagas were known to them principally through recitation, and the insertion at appropriate intervals of well-known songs in which all could join was a ready way of relieving tedium and of securing ‗audience participation,‘ as well perhaps, of preventing strain on the reciter‘s voice. Such songs would have served also to mark logical pauses in the sequences of narratives, though they need not originally have had any connection with them. 274
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
God cares for God‘s people‖265—both traits are especially enjoyed by Ex 15. Ex 15* is not just the jubilant counterpart of Ex 14, though. 2.3.3.2 Ex 15* in relation to Ex 1-15* Ex 15* is the climax of the compositional block Ex 1-15*.266 Again, because of the large lacunae after the Song(s) at the Sea (in BHS), Ex 1-15* invites the interpretation that it is a distinguished literary block.267 Several aspects of Ex 15* correspond to the opening chs. of Exodus. C. Isbell asserts, ―Exodus 1:8-2:25 functions as a kind of ‗prelude‘ to the whole story of Exodus 1-14.‖268 For example, M. Fishbane observes, the Hebrew ―babies are to be drowned in the sea (Exodus 1:22); but Moses is saved (2:1-6) …[and] the Egyptians are drowned in the sea, while all Israel is saved (chaps. 14-15).‖269 In addition to thematic continuities throughout Ex 1-15* there are noteworthy structural (Formen) considerations of said literary block. W. Brueggemann, extending the hymnic nature of the concluding poem to the rest of Ex 1-15* framework, illuminates, ―the primary shaping event of the exodus, Exodus 2-15 is presented in as a lament form: lament: The Israelites groaned under their slavery, and cried out (z„q). Out of their slavery their cry for help rose up to God (2:23) salvation oracle: I have observed the misery of my people…I have heard their cry (si„q)…I know their sufferings, and I have come down to deliver them. (3:7-8) thanksgiving: I will sing to Yahweh, for he has triumphed gloriously. (15:1) Shaping the exodus in the lament-thanksgiving form gave to biblical faith its most powerful model as a religion of salvation.‖270 Indeed, the exodus event(s) of Ex 1-15* are paradigmatic of salvation.
265 Watts, Psalm and Story, 191. Watts concludes that inset hymns in Hebrew prose ―rarely affect plot, but instead structure large blocks of material thematically, deepen the theocentric orientation of books and internal characterization of individuals, and actualize the narratives by eliciting reader participation in the songs‖ (ibid., 197). 266 Russell, Song of the Sea, 47-52. 267 See J.J. Burden et al., eds., Exodus 1-15: Text and Context; Lyle Eslinger, ―Freedom or Knowledge? Perspectives and Purpose in the Exodus Narrative (Exodus 1-15),‖ JSOT 52/4 (1991): 43-60; Georg Fischer, ―Exodus 1-15. Eine Erzӓhlung‖ in Studies in the Book of Exodus (ed. M. Vervenne), 149-178; Fohrer, berlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus; J. Edward Owens, Narrative Criticism and Theology in Exodus 1-15 (Ph.D. diss.: The Catholic University of America, 1996), esp. 226-227. 268 Isbell, ―Exodus 1-2,‖ 56. 269 Fishbane, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts (New York: Schocken Books, 1979), 73. 270 W. Brueggemann, The Psalms and the Life of Faith (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995), 77 who gives credit to Plastaras (God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives [Milwaukee, Wisc.: Bruce Publishing Company, 1966], 49-50); formatting of quoted material differs. Cf. Ska, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives (Subsidia Biblica, 13; Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1990), 18: ―Exodus 1-15…aims not only at the liberation of the Israelites, but probably more at the revelation of God to the Egyptians (cf. Exod 14,25) and to the sons of Israel (14,30-31; 15,1-17). Moreover we should remember that what triggered off the process of oppression is ‗ignorance‘ (Exod 1,8‖. 275
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.3.3.3 Ex 1-15* in relation to the Book of Exodus M.S. Smith does not exactly see Ex 15* as a part of a Ex 1-15* block, in contrast; rather, he views Ex 15* as the hinge piece of the whole book of Exodus.271 In this vein, C. Meyers asserts: ―The Song of the Sea thus functions as the centerpiece (but not the center point) of the book of Exodus in terms of Israel‘s existence in freedom versus bondage.‖272 The bifurcated structure of the Song of the Sea, in fact, encapsulates in miniature the two broader portions of the book of Exodus, Smith maintains; specifically, Ex 15.1-12 corresponds to Ex 1-14 with the primary scope being Egypt, and Ex 15.13-18 corresponds to Ex15*-40 with Sinai (and beyond) as the focused concern.273 T. Linafelt concurs; the Song(s) at the Sea ―marks a particularly significant moment in the larger narrative of Exodus: the story moves geographically from Egypt to the wilderness and thematically from liberation to covenant, even as the people of Israel move from slavery to freedom.‖274 Though Ex 1-15* is a self-contained literary unit, the deliverance/salvation from Egypt is not fully realized until Israel enters into covenant with YHWH (Ex 20-24) and has a cultic centre of worship for her God (Ex 25-31, 35-40);275 for, the main objective of the exodus from Egypt stated to Pharaoh was ―that they may serve me in the wilderness‖ (Ex 7.16b; cf. Ex 3.12; 4.23; 8.1, 20; 9.1, 13; 10.3 [7, 8, 11, 24, 26]; 12.31). In fact, A.C. Leder has demonstrated the coherence of the book of Exodus based on a congruent template between it and Enuma Elish and the Baal Epic; this fourfold structure is: [1] the occasion for the conflict (Ex 1.1–7.7); [2] the battle (Ex 7.8–14.31); [3] the kingship (Ex 15.1–24.11); [4] the Lord‘s palace (Ex 24.12–40.38).276 Consequently, Exodus is a well-defined book, despite—or because of—its multiplicity of motifs.
271 Smith, ―The Literary Arrangement,‖ 38, 46; similarly Russell, Song of the Sea, 17. Contra the either/or position of G.W. Coats (―The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif,‖ VT 17/3 [1967]: 253-265) and B.S. Childs (―A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition,‖ VT 20/4 [1970]: 408-410; Exodus, 222-224, 244); cf. Dale Patrick, ―Traditio-History of the Reed Sea Account,‖ VT 26/2 (1976): 248-249. 272 Meyers, Exodus, 122. 273 Smith, Pilgrimage Pattern, 227-261. 274 Tod Linafelt, ―Prolegomena to Meaning, or, What is ‗Literary‘ about the Torah?,‖ TS 69 (2008): 69. 275 R. Albertz takes Ex 1-34 as the original length/scope of the Book of Exodus (―The Late Exilic Book of Exodus [Exodus 1-34*]: A Contribution to the Pentateuchal Discussion‖ in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research [FAT, 78; eds. T.B. Dozeman, K. Schmid, and B. Schwartz; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011], 254). 276 Arie C. Leder, ―The Coherence of Exodus: Narrative Unity and Meaning,‖ CTJ 36/2 (2001): 262- 268. 276
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.3.3.4 Ex 1-15* in relation to the Penta/Hexa/Enneateuch Ex 1-15* (or Ex 2-14/15*) marks the opening literary block of one history of Israel (see ch.3 2.3);277 yet, what/where is the terminal literary block of the intervening corpora?278 There are a few options and the Song(s) of Ex 15* inform each possibility. First, the complex unit may extend through Deuteronomy (with Genesis, the Pentateuch).279 In this view the Song(s) at the Sea (Ex 15*) and the Song of Moses (Deut 32*) form bookends, the initial and terminal literary blocks respectively.280 This corpus spans the life of Moses, and the songs are also placed at pivotal points: at the birth of the nation, Israel and at the death of Moses—both at the threshold (geographically and figuratively) of Israel‘s history. This appears to be a well-defined unit. However, strophe II of the Song mentions three peoples/nations specifically and one generically: the people of Philistia, Edom, Moab, and Canaan.281 And, Israel has actually not had any interaction with the Philistines in the Pentateuch,282 very limited contact with the Edomites,283 and a remote exchange with the Canaanites;284 only the Israelites‘ encounter with the Moabites in the Pentateuch is reminiscent of Ex 15.15.285 Ultimately, the reaction that the Song(s) proclaimed of the aforesaid nations has not transpired.286 Hence, one must read farther.
277 Cf. also Christoph Berner, Die Exoduserzӓhlung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels (FAT, 73; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010); Jan Christian Gertz, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzӓhlung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch (FRLANT, 186; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). 278 See Thomas Römer, ―How Many Books (teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch?‖ in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? (eds. T.B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid), 25-42; Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid, ―Introduction: Pentateuque, Hexateuque, Ennéateuque: Exposé du problème‖ in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L‟Hexateuque et de L‟Ennéateuque‖ (BETL, 203; eds. T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007), 1-7; Blum, ―Pentateuch–Hexateuch– Enneateuch? Or: How Can One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible?‖ in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? (trans. Thomas B. Dozeman and David M. Carr; eds. T.B. Dozeman, T. Römer, and K. Schmid), 43-71 / ―Pentateuch–Hexateuch–Enneateuch? order: Woran erkennt man ein literarisches Werk in der hebrӓischen Bibel?‖ in Les Dernières Rédactions (eds. T.B. Rӧmer and K. Schmid), 67-97. 279 Cf. Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch (BZAW, 189; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990), esp. 9- 43. 280 John H. Sailhamer (The Pentateuch as Narrative, A Biblical-Theological Commentary [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992], 35) points out the poems at the (near) end of Genesis (Jacob‘s blessing) and Numbers (Balaam‘s oracle). 281 The initial people group that the Israelites encounter on the other side of the Sea are not any of those listed in the Song, as one might expect, but instead the Amalekites (Ex 17*). 282 Of the two references to the Philistines, the first explicitly states the lack of contact (―When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, ‗Lest the people repent when they see war, and return to Egypt.‘‖ [Ex 13.17]) while the second is merely a geographical reference (Ex 23.31). 283 The Edomites in Num 20* refused Israel a thoroughfare through their land, thus they are not dismayed (so Ex 15.15; cf. Num 24.18). See also Num 21.4; 33.37; 34.3. 284 Num 13*. Cf. Num 33.40. 285 See Num 22-24. Cf. Deut 2.8-9. 286 Cf. Klein (―Hymn and History in Ex. 15,‖ 521, 525) on Num 16. 277
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Second, to encompass the contents of Ex 15.13-18 a larger-scale corpus that Ex 15* introduces shifts to include the book of Joshua (with Genesis, the Hexateuch).287 This corpus has a promising start with the Israelites crossing the Jordan River (Josh 3) in a manner highly reminiscent of the Song‘s first strophe (Ex 15.1-12).288 Subsequently, Joshua leads a militaristic campaign throughout the land of Canaan. Nevertheless, Philistia is among the regions still to be conquered after Joshua‘s death (Josh 13.1-6); Edom is elusive (Josh 15*); Moab is partially overtaken (cf. Josh 13.32; 24.9); Canaan is only partially settled (Josh 14.1; 22.9-10). So not even in the Hexateuch is the prospectus of Ex 15* achieved. There is another major element of Strophe II, additionally, that pushes the corpus bounds further still: the issue of a holy dwelling, a sanctuary. Third, the corpora that Ex 1-15* introduces can be seen to culminate in the Kings account (hence creating, with Genesis, the Enneateuch).289 Under David all Israel‘s enemies are routed and subdued; for example, the Philistines, Edomites, and Moabites were all subjected to Israelite dominion (2 Sam 8). In the same gesture, under David and Solomon the land of Israel is its largest, including more than Canaan (1 Kgs 5.3-5).290 Moreover, it is with Solomon that the temple in Jerusalem is built (1 Kgs 6-9)—that mountain of God‘s inheritance, sacred dwelling, sanctuary (Ex 15.13, 17). Thus, the realization of Ex 15.13-18 is realized most manifestly in the early part of the Kings record (cf. 2.2.2.3.1). Yet, with the realization of the temple of the LORD in the Kings account also come its demise (2 Kgs 25); indeed, there is a complete undoing of the entire Song(s) at the end of Kings. (Of course, once in exile a new leading [hxn; Ex 15.13aα] and guiding [lhn; Ex 15.13b]—indeed, a new redemption [l)g; Ex 15.13aβ + hnq; Ex 15.16bβ] and deliverance [rb(…rb(; Ex 15.16bα]— is the subject of the exiles‘ outcry.)
2.4 Summary We can now bring several elements of our diachronic exegesis of Ex 15* together in the form of a summary. The text of Ex 15.1-21 is in fairly good condition, with minor discrepancies throughout the poems and colophons amongst the rescensions and other families of texts; all
287 See Von Rad, The Problem of the Hexateuch, and other essays (trans. E.W. Trueman Dicken; New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966). 288 Klein, ―Hymn and History in Ex. 15,‖ 521, 526. 289 See Konrad Schmid, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT, 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999); idem, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (trans. James Nogalski; Siphrut, 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010). 290 Compare the David‘s song at the end of the Samuel account (2 Sam 22), and how this mirrors the Song of Moses (Deut 32) as a potential bookend to Ex 1-15*. 278
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
things considered, it is a text of high veracity with only trace inaccuracies to which correction cannot be ascertained. The two poems with two sets of colophon indicate a multiplicity of authorial and redactional hands. The Song of Miriam (15.21b), likely produced by Miriam, was the original kernel of the whole complex, originating at the shore of the Reed Sea in the wake of the crossing. Thence, the Song of Moses (15.1b-18) was developed by an ancient poet. Though the poem has a strong bifurcation of themes and poetics (vv.1b-12 + vv.13-18), this poem nevertheless was the product of one poet at one time, in all likelihood. The literary artist responsible for Ex 15.1b-18 wrote in the aftermath of the erection of the temple in Jerusalem under Solomon with the tenth century BCE as terminus a quo, since current events would have seen a culmination in the penultimate contents of the large poem/song. The longer song was a free-floating hymn serving in cultic ceremony likely related to the Passover observance. When the Priestly writer took to write his Grundschrift record of Israel‘s story, P punctuated the Ex 1-14* literary block by quoting the Song of Miriam (15.21b); in order to frame the lyrical stanza appropriated from oral tradition, P penned a terse colophon (15.20- 21a). The Song of Miriam appealed to P because of the religio-theological element of God‘s victory/overthrow over the enemy, transcendent of typical warfare. P wrote Ex 1-15* in the sixth century BCE in or near Jerusalem in light of and response to liberation from (Babylonian–Persian) exile; for, an exodus out of exile was foretold by the Deutero-Isaiah as both another sea crossing (Isa 43; cf. Isa 11.16) and destruction of the enemy at the waters event (Isa 51.9-11). In this timeframe, the exodus of Persian exile is reminiscent of the exodus from (the exile, of sorts, of) Egypt. Non-P later functioned as the compositor/redactor of the same block of texts, supplementing it to its now final-form. In addition to compositing Ex 1-14*, the Song at the Sea (15.1b-18) was incorporated into the nP complex also as a climaxing literary move. An opening and closing colophon (15.1a + 15.19) was composited as a frame for the Song; and this unit (15.1-19) was arranged anterior to P‘s colophon and quoted song (15.20-21). That nP redacted his material, placing it in the priority position was predicated upon the proclivity of ordering according to length/content and corporate involvement; P‘s final sentences of the literary block, and the Song of Miriam accordingly, was relegated to the posterior position which now invites a certain non-linear reading of Ex 15*, even though the short Song (Ex 15.21b) was the only song sang on the occasion with the longer Song (Ex 15.1b-18) being composed much later. Furthermore, the religio-theological factors at play for nP‘s
279
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
compositing/redacting are deliverance and de-creation–re-creation of the Israelites and depicting YHWH as Warrior, Leader, and King. For P, Ex 1-15* functions similarly to Gen 6-9* (P); it was written in the same place, at essentially the same time, for the same (theological) purpose: a cosmic liberation of God‘s people over tyranny. For nP, the copious conflation at the end of the Ex 1-15* has a symmetrical balance with Ex 1-2 (nP) near the beginning of the literary block; moreover, there is the continuity of bodies of water in each, the Nile and the Reed Sea respectively— thus first Moses is saved from water then the Israelites; first Hebrew babies are executed via abysmal waters then the Egyptian cavalry by means of the same. Consequently, Gen 6.5– 9.17, Ex 2.1-10, and Ex 15.1-21 (P + nP) form a triangular relationship concerning theological interest (deliverance/salvation/liberation, rebirth/ renewal), literary formation
(death–life–[eventual] covenant), and key terminology (hbt, Mwht).
280
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER 6
THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
Reaching the penultimate development of the thesis, a brief summary is in order. In the preceding movements of the present work the initial stage was to exegetically examine the two textual contexts wherein hbt was found; irrespective of size, occupants, and surrounding events a hbt is the operative vessel in both the Flood (Gen 6-9*) and Foundling (Ex 2*) stories of the Pentateuch. The next stage of investigation was ascertaining the donor language from which the Hebrew had loaned hbt. It was determined that despite grossly germane Flood and Foundling stories in Akkadian/ Babylonian literature, Egyptian is actually the language from which hbt was coopted—Ex 2* is set in Egypt after all. Though there has been a longstanding majority consensus that hbt is an Egyptian loanword (ḏbȝ.t) meaning coffer or coffin, it was determined that hbt also means, should the context allow, and Ex 2* does, a Götterschrein. Further, despite the longevous identification of hbt as Egyptian very little scholarship has committed itself concerning the reason and meaning of this usage. Thus the augmentation and advancement of the hbt discussion has been our primary interest. A third text, the Song(s) at the Sea (Ex 15*), has been enveloped into the study in order to forge such progression. Ex 15* with Ex 2* has a binary relationship as a beginning and the ending points of the Ex 1/2-15* literary block, with water and destruction and deliverance (and Miriam) at both poles; Ex 15* also has a triangular relationship with Gen 6-
9* and Ex 2* in issues such as abysmal waters (Mwht/Nun), cosmogony, and even to an extent (cf. the coffin/chest [soro/j] of Joseph in Gen 50.26 and Ex 13.18-19, and the Field of Reeds that coffins passed through/over in Egypt). As a consequence, this third text, Ex 15*, provided a (missing) piece to the discussion. The theological dimension to the subject is now the next stage of the thesis‘s development. The diachronic exegesis of our three Pentateuchal texts stopped shy of Theologische Kritik, since (in part) they were not consecutively analyzed. At this point Theologische Kritik, the final stage of our diachronic exegesis, of Gen 6.5–9.17, Ex 2.1-10, and Ex 15.1-21 shall be undertaken. The coalescence of these three Pentateuchal texts in a theological treatment shall not always be considered separately, but often times as concurrent
281
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
interlocutors; for, an aggregate theological portrait is realized when particular focus is cast upon . Now, there are two general ways in understanding the term ―theology.‖ One is, strictly speaking, the study of God; another way in cognizing the term has affinities to the term ―biblical theology,‖ viz. (canonical) doctrine.1 Both facets of the concept are in the scope of our study at this juncture.
1. Theology Proper Theology proper is, again, the substantiation of who God is. Several explicit and implicit declarations are made about God in the Genesis and Exodus texts of our scope. These attestations shall be underscored in order to broach the nature of the God of the Bible. In the following charts any unqualified (non-bracketed) line stands for assertions of speech and action from the Deity via the narrator‘s voice. Entries in square brackets ([]) indicate received words and events of the Deity by characters or entities of the story, or character directed actions/words to the Deity. Rows in curly brackets ({}) enumerate words and action of the Deity as direct verbalizations from the Deity. Entries in angle brackets (<>) are the poet‘s appositional attributions of the Deity‘s qualities and/or deeds. The first text considered is the Flood Narrative of Gen 6-9*. Both P and nP make theological statements through the narrator‘s voice, the Deity, and the characters (cf. ch.2 1.2). Furthermore, P and nP depict the Flood in both complementary and contrasting ways theologically (cf. ch.2 2.4.2).
Gen 6-9*
YHWH saw (h)r) man‘s wickedness 6.5 YHWH was sorry (Mxn) for creating man 6.6 YHWH was grieved (bc() for creating man 6.6 YHWH spoke (rm)) (to self) 6.7 {I/YHWH will wipe out (hxm) mankind (b/c) 6.7} {I/YHWH am sorry (Mxn) re: mankind 6.7} [Noah found favour (Nx) in YHWH‘s eyes 6.8] [Noah walked (Klh) with God 6.9] God saw (h)r) the earth 6.12 God spoke (rm)) to Noah 6.13 {I/God will ruin (tx#) the earth 6.13} {I/God am bringing ()wb) a flood on earth 6.17} {I/God will establish (Mwq) a covenant 6.18}
1 W.E. Lemke gravitates to the explanation of the secondary meaning of the term, even when defining the primary meaning of ―theology‖; he states it is the ―exposition of the theological contents of the Old Testament writings‖ (Werner E. Lemke, ―Theology (OT)‖ ABD 4:449). Cf. Henning Graf Reventlow, ―Theology (Biblical), History of‖ ABD 4:483-505. See further Childs, Biblical Theology: A Proposal (Facets; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2002). 282
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
[Noah obeyed (hwc…)#() God 6.22] YHWH spoke (rm)) to Noah 7.1 {I/YHWH see (h)r) Noah as righteous 7.1} {I/YHWH will send rain (r+m) on earth 7.4} {I/YHWH will wipe out (hxm) all existence 7.4} [Noah obeyed (hwc…)#() YHWH 7.5] YHWH shut in (rgs) Noah 7.16 God remembered (rkz) Noah, et al. 8.1 God spoke ([rm)l…]rbd) to Noah 8.15 [Noah built (hnb) altar unto YHWH 8.20] YHWH smelled (xwr) pleasing aroma 8.21 YHWH spoke (rm)) in his heart 8.21 {I/YHWH will never again curse the ground 8.21} (dw( llql Ps)-)l) {I/YHWH will never again destroy all flesh 8.21} (twkhl dw( Ps)-)l) God blessed (Krb) Noah and sons 9.1 {I/God give (Ntn) to you everything 9.3} I/God will avenge (#rd) life (of murderer) 9.5} {I/God will avenge (#rd) life 9.5} God spoke (rm)) to Noah and sons 9.8 {I/God establish (Mwq) my covenant 9.9} {I/God establish (Mwq) my covenant 9.11} {I/God give (Ntn) a covenant sign 9.12} {I/God set (Ntn) my bow (sign) 9.13} {I/God will remember (rkz) my covenant 9.15} {I/God will see (h)r) my covenant sign 9.16} {I/God will remember (rkz) my covenant 9.16} God spoke (rm)) (to Noah, et al.) 9.12 God spoke (rm)) to Noah 9.17 {I/God have establish (Mwq) covenant & sign 9.17}
The above tabulations shall now be summarized. YHWH/God sees, speaks, smells, and
―touches‖ (rgs). YHWH/God is sorrowed/grieved by mankind, may grant favour/grace unto humans. YHWH/God causes ruin to come in the form of rain/flood, and life to be wiped out. YHWH/God avenges life, establishes/sets/gives a covenant and its sign, promises, and remembers and blesses living creatures, bidding them to be fruitful, to multiply, and scatter. YHWH/God is obeyed, worshipped, and walked with by Noah. In short, YHWH/God has senses, emotions, a standard of justice, power over heaven and earth and all the elements therein—this is the awe-inspiring picture of YHWH/God in the Flood Narrative. Turning to Exodus, the Foundling account makes no mention of YHWH/God; consequently, the broader context of Ex 1-2 shall be examined (as in both the synchronic and diachronic sections of ch.3), since Ex 2.1-10 is the centrepiece, thematically and physically, of this literary unit (see ch.3 2.4.1). Both the nP compositor/redactor and the P author make theological attestations in the surrounding context (cf. ch.3 2.4.2).
283
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Ex 1-2
[Midwives feared ()ry) God 1.17] God was good (b+y) to midwives 1.20 God increased ()br) the people 1.20 God strengthened (Mc() the people 1.20 [B/c midwives feared ()ry) God… 1.21] God made ()#() them families 1.21 [Israelites cried out (q(z) to God 2.23] God heard ((m#) Israelites‘ groaning 2.24 God remembered (rkz) his covenant 2.24 God looked upon (h)r) Israelites 2.25 God knew ((dy) 2.25
Similar to what is revealed of the Deity in Gen 6-9* by way of senses, God in Ex 1-2 sees, hears, cognizes, and remembers. Also, akin to the blessing in Gen 9.1(7), God here causes the increase and strengthening of the people—the Deity is good to particular families too. God, furthermore, is feared and cried out to (and God subsequently responds, acts). The third Pentateuchal text, also in Exodus (15.1-21) is distinct from the previous two in that it is a poetic piece of literature, and as such theological attributions of the Deity are more pictorial and metaphorical (cf. ch.5 1.1, 1.2, 2.4.2).
Ex 15*
[Moses, et al. sang (ry#) to YHWH 15.1a] YHWH triumphed (h)g) 15.1b YHWH shot (hmr) horse and chariot(eer) 15.1b
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
[Inhabitants are still (Mmd) before YHWH 15.16aβ] YHWH purchased (hnq) his people 15.16b YHWH brings in and plants ((+n + )wb) his people 15.17aα YHWH made (l(p) dwelling place 15.17aβ YHWH established (Nwk) sanctuary 15.17b YHWH reigns/rules (Klmy) 15.18 [Miriam, et al. sang (ry#[…hn(]) to YHWH 15.21a] YHWH has triumphed (h)g) 15.21b YHWH has shot (hmr) horse and chariot(eer) 15.21b
To summarize and synthesize these tabulations, YHWH/God sees, hears, knows, blesses, and remembers; YHWH/God is to be feared, cried out to, sung to, glorified, and obeyed; YHWH/God purchases, redeems, leads and guides, and brings in and plants his people; YHWH/God triumphs over enemies, reigns forever and ever, establishes covenant and sanctuary. From the portrayal of YHWH/God gained in Gen 6-9*, Ex 2*, and Ex 15 YHWH/ God is a Deity that intervenes in the course of world history (however overt or covert), reproving and rewarding individuals and communities, blessing and covenanting; indeed, a sketch of YHWH‘s/God‘s characteristics and attributes, works and deeds, words and will is fully evident. In personified terms, YHWH/God is Creator, Judge, Redeemer, and Ruler/King. Henceforth, theology in the secondary meaning can be advanced. At this point development is possible from theology proper (the study of God) to theologies (i.e. a doctrinal sense of the term) to which the above said texts portent. The starting point of theologies is from that which was elucidated through the loci of the Deity in the three Pentateuchal texts.
2. Biblical Theology There are several doctrinal aspects that can be gleaned from the two texts plus the Song(s). Concerted effort is undertaken to address to the most salient theological themes and zeniths. As a result, the theologies enumerated centre on (1) the salvation experience (including covenant), (2) sanctuary or cultic structures, and (3) a few biblical typologies such as new exodus/creation; also similar such reverberations are present in the New Testament to which we shall project. Moreover, focused analysis shall be given to the theological dimensions of hbt. 2.1 Salvation History Salvation history, or the historical redemptive method, is the broadest, most overarching theological sketch that can be made on an inter/intra-textual basis. This trajectory in Gen 6-9* and Ex 2-15* comprises the following stages. When a people, chosen/favoured by God, are in 285
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
a life threatening situation, either figuratively (bondage/slavery) and/or literally (impending death), then: (1) YHWH/God makes judgement upon the situation and executes destruction for the purpose of achieving justice, namely for humanity and even the earth/land is under such a scope; (2) the chosen/favoured people are rescued, liberated from pending judgement/ destruction and thence experience deliverance, salvation—and is clearly the means of deliverance in both the specific and general contexts; (3) having been favoured by YHWH/ God in the judgement, this saved, liberated status is formalized in covenant relationship with said Deity which crystallizes a new era, a new paradigm out of, or away from, the previous injustice and bondage. Each of these stages within the rubric of salvation shall be directly treated in greater detail. 2.1.1 Judgement, Wrath, and Destruction In the Flood Narrative the impetus for God to act in conspicuous ways is based on his predilection to judge corruption, to execute wrath in destruction; this evaluative statement is the overture to the whole story (Gen 6.[1-4] 5-7, 11-13). Due to the wickedness ([h](r) of humanity and the corrupted (tx#) state of the earth, filled as it was with violence (smx),
YHWH/God, grieved that YHWH/God created humans, felt compelled to destroy (√tx#), to wipe out (√hxm) all living creatures that he had made on earth. Consequently, YHWH/God sends a Deluge, and accomplishes said effect for the aforementioned reason(s): every living thing subjected to the Flood is wiped out (√hxm; Gen 7.23) and destroyed (√tx#; cf. Gen 9.11, 15), and YHWH/God comes to terms, effectively, with humanity‘s wicked inclinations at 2 the end of the flood events ((r; Gen 8.21). The events wherein Moses‘ Infancy Story is set, the judgment, wrath, and destruction come not from Deity for noble purposes, but from the pharaoh for ignoble ones. Driven by self-interest for his country, the pharaoh‘s wrath is incited, due to the proliferation of the Israelites; he makes judgements to the ends of destroying future generations of the Hebrew people who are enslaved in Egypt (Ex 1.8-14). The first method to curtail the growth of the Israelites is for midwives to/of the Hebrews to abort, i.e. kill, male newborns at the birthing stool; this judgement unto destruction is thwarted, and the pharaoh‘s rage is inflamed all the
2 Joel S. Kaminsky (―The Theology of Genesis‖ in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation [VTS, 152; eds., C.A. Evans, J.N. Lohr, and D.L. Petersen; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 642) sees in the Flood account ―…substantially differing theologies. The P strand of the narrative views the flood as God‘s righteous judgment on a wicked humanity (Gen 6:11). In contrast, J appears to show a more ambivalent deity who first exhibits regret at having created humankind and in the end regrets having destroyed the world by the flood (Gen 6:5-8; 8:21).‖ Regarding the evil inclination of humankind, see further R.W.L. Moberly, The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Old Testament Theology [Series]; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 110-118. 286
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
more (Ex 1.15-21). Next, newborn males who make it beyond the birthing stool are to be seized and hurled into the Nile to be drowned (Ex 1.22). Thus, even though the motives are nefarious and the victims innocent, analogous thematic features of judgement, wrath, and destruction are present in Ex 1-2. In the Reed Sea crossing depicted in its poetic and theological rendering, the Song(s) portray YHWH as the one executing destruction out of judgement or wrath. YHWH is said to have hurled/thrown Pharaoh and his army into the sea (Ex 15.1b, 4) to the effect that they are sunk in (tlwcmb wdry; Ex 15.5b / √llc; Ex 15.10b) and covered by (√hsk; Ex 15.5a, 10a) abysmal waters (Mwht) and are drowned (√(b+; Ex 15.4b). The catalyst for this destruction is explicated in the Song(s); the aquatic destruction materializes because ―thou [YHWH] sendest forth thy fury‖ (Ex 15.7). ―Fury‖ or burning anger (Nwrx) is also idiomatically alluded to in close proximity within the Song(s), for example Kyp) xwrbw, at the blast of your nostrils/ anger (Ex 15.8a) (cf. Kxwrb tp#n; Ex 15.10aα). This display of wrath, this execution of judgment to the ends of destruction is, within the narrative arch of Ex 1-15*, is based on the unjust tyranny inflicted upon the Israelites at the beginning of Exodus.3 In all three of these Pentateuchal texts a sovereign, whether one Divine or human, directs wrath toward a certain population of mankind. Subsequently, in each instance, there is a judgment pronounced upon said demographic of humanity for their destruction, however just or unjust the case may be. Further, in each situation water—deep and dreadful waters—is the instrument of the destruction: a Deluge (Mwht), the Nile (Nun), and the Sea of Reeds
(Mwht), respectively. 2.1.2 Rescue/Deliverance/Salvation/Liberation On the other side of the coin of judgement, wrath, and destruction is rescue/deliverance/ salvation/liberation4—the one cannot exist (biblically) without the other.5 In the case of the Flood, the provided the means of rescue from the aquatic onslaught. Noah built the vessel designed and instructed by God in order for his family and (multiple) pairs of animals to survive the coming cataclysm. When the Deluge commenced all occupants were aboard
3 R. Zuurmond (―Het bijbelse verhaal: verteller en vertaler,‖ „– wie het leest lette er op! –‟ een bundel bijbelvertaal-vragen, 41 [1970]: 2509) states: ―Het motief van de onderdompeling in de (dood)rivier verbindt Exodus 2 met de doortocht door de Rietzee...‖ Cf. Donald E. Gowan, Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 127-140. 4 Each of these terms has unique definitions, yet there is a large measure of semantic overlap nevertheless; we take these four words (rescue, deliverance, salvation, liberation) as domain terms of a similar, grandiose concept. 5 See e.g., Walther Zimmerli, Old Testament Theology in Outline (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978), 167- 174; Claus Westermann, Elements of Old Testament Theology (Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1982), 39-40. 287
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
the in order to ―escape the waters of the flood‖ (Gen 7.7b);6 escape is, of course, synonymous with rescue, salvation. Indeed, those inside the were delivered from the antediluvian to the post-diluvium world;7 further, it can be seen that Noah and family were liberated (for the time being) from the corrupted earth and the wickedness of humanity. At the Nile Moses experienced a progressive salvation. Like the Flood Narrative, the infant was sequestered in a that was constructed by Moses‘ mother and made waterproof with bitumen and pitch; next, the was hidden in a camouflage environ (reeds) with the sister keeping watch. Subsequently, the Egyptian princess found, recovered, and sustained the life of the Hebrew infant; she had compassion on infant Moses, the same verb also meaning to spare (√lmx; Ex 2.6a)—which has salvific denotations. The princess ―‗drew him out of the water‘‖ which is also equivalent to salvation (Ex 2.10), especially considering the contents of Ex 1.22.8 The infant thence is weaned and grows up among the Egyptian aristocracy. The Song(s) expressly communicates rescue/deliverance/salvation/liberation in a few lyrical stanzas. ―The LORD is my strength and my song, and he has become my salvation
[h(w#yl]‖ (Ex 15.2a); ―Thou hast led in thy steadfast love the people whom thou hast redeemed [√l)g]‖ (Ex 15.13)…―whom thou hast purchased [√hnq]‖ (Ex 15.16b). This realized salvation is, furthermore, part-and-parcel of being liberated from Egyptian bondage.9
The Song(s) also speaks (in doublet) of the Israelites passing by (√rb(; Ex 15.16b); while there is debate as to what exactly this refers to, it is scintillating nonetheless that the same verb is used in the Passover context in Exodus 12 (vv.12, 13) where the death-dealing angel passes over (√rb() the Hebrews houses with the smeared blood of the lamb on the doorposts
6 So RSV. The Hebrew is lwbmh ym ynpm which is literally, ―away from the face of the waters of the flood.‖ 7 Meredith G. Kline (Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview [Overland Park, KS: Two Ages Press, 2000], 225) states, ―the ark served an instrumental purpose as the vehicular means for the deliverance of God‘s people from judgment waters‖ (cf. ibid., 231, 235). He advances (ibid., 241): ―In preparing the ark as the means of salvation from the divine judgment…Noah was also constructing a symbolic cosmic house of God, a typological figure of the consummated kingdom, the goal of the covenant.‖ 8 Zlotnick-Sivan (―Moses the Persian?,‖ 195) illuminates ―the story is implicitly replete with corpses of dead children, first of Hebrew baby males who had not been rescued and then of Egyptian first born whose demise ushers the deliverance of the Hebrew slaves.‖ 9 Edmond Jacob (Theology of the Old Testament [trans. Arthur W. Heathcote and Philip J. Allcock; New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1958], 121) writes: ―The Exodus, that liberating event which became the type of salvation, was due to the intervention of Yahweh in the form of a strong wind which dried up the sea and gave the Israelites passage (Ex. 14.21; 15.8).‖ Cf. Westermann, Isaiah 40-66 (trans. David M.G. Stalker; OTL; Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 242. 288
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
and mantles—hence saving the lives of those inside the shelters. As a result, ―[t]he exodus has become a prototype of ultimate redemption.‖10 In Genesis 6-9*, Exodus 2*, and Exodus 15*, then, there is a rescue/deliverance/ salvation from life threatening waters, and a liberation from the previously corrupted state of the protagonist(s), whether that be wickedness and violence, ignominious genocide, or tyrannical enslavement. With Genesis 6-9* and Exodus 2* the respective parties are saved from the death-waters by means of . In each of the texts as well the person or persons is rescued/saved/delivered by YHWH/God because they have a special relationship with, or disposition to, the Deity. For example, Noah is righteous and blameless, favoured by YHWH and walked with God (Gen 6.8-9); Moses is a goodly child and receives pity at an opportune time, from an opportune person (Ex 2.2, 6), even as previously when the Hebrew midwives feared God then God dealt well (good) with them, giving them families (Ex 1.17, 20-21); the Israelites are saved because YHWH/God is the Deity of their forefathers (Ex 2.25; 15.2b), they are purchased/redeemed—which connotes previous possession—and they shall be led/ guided/brought to the mountain/ sanctuary/holy abode established by YHWH (Ex 15.13, 16- 17). 2.1.3 Covenant The reality of liberation, it can be argued, is not crystallized until the newly saved and delivered person or persons is brought into covenant relationship with YHWH/God.11 In both Genesis and Exodus, (relatively) shortly after the experience the survivors of an impending watery death enter into covenant. In Genesis (6-9*) this is a unilateral covenant between God and all humanity; and in Exodus (1-15*[-19ff.]) the covenant is bilateral or contractual between YHWH/God and the Israelites. In Genesis 6-9*after the Flood the occupants of the disembark (Gen 8.15-19), Noah makes sacrifice (Gen 8.20), and then God speaks, orating the covenant (Gen 9.1-17). Beyond the covenantal promise (never to destroy the earth with a flood again [Gen 9.11, 15]) and the covenant sign (a rainbow [Gen 9.12-14, 16-17]), God pronounces blessing upon all living creatures: ―‗[b]e fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth‘‖ (Gen 9:1); ―‗be fruitful and
10 Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006), 27. 11 Rolf P. Knierim (―On the Task of Old Testament Theology‖ in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective [SAC, 1; eds. W. Kim et al.; Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2000], 28) explicates, ―the semantic fields and concepts of liberation, or salvation, and justice and righteousness are related but not identical. When compared, liberation appears as an element of justice, namely as liberation either from injustice suffered by others or from self-inflicted sin. Justice is distinct in that it involves more than liberation alone. Justice also means that the liberated are freed in order to do what is right‖, namely covenant relationship. 289
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
multiply, bring forth abundantly on the earth and multiply in it‘‖ (Gen 9.7).12 There is also legislature given regarding dietary standards (Gen 9.2-6). This is the covenant God unilaterally established (√Mwq; Gen 9.9, 11). Infant Moses‘ salvation experience by means of is just part one of a two part liberation; eventually the Israelites are delivered out of slavery in Egypt to liberation on the other side of the Reed Sea. Thus, the nation of Israel can only pass through death-waters unto life and liberation because their leader is first saved via through death-waters culminating in rescue.13 However, even after both deep water deliverances, salvation is fully 14 realized well beyond the Reed Sea when entering covenant with YHWH/God at Mt. Sinai. This covenant, called Sinaitic or Mosaic, is contractual between Israel and YHWH/God. Like the covenant after the Flood, the Sinaitic covenant has a covenantal sign (the Sabbath),15 has plans for blessings, and has dietary laws. Unlike the first covenant, however, the Sinaitic covenant features curses for disobedience, among many other elements.16 The Noahic (Gen 9*) and Sinaitic (Ex 19ff.) covenants, for how dissimilar they are, regardless have a similar setting;17 and, the one(s) saved/delivered by the agency of a are the human representatives of the covenant establishing or cutting process: Noah and Moses.18 Further, there is additional convergence in that a Divine piece of architecture (a temple or sanctuary of sorts) features in the covenant contexts each atop a mountain; and this brings us to our next theological consideration.
12 See ―Creation and Noahic Covenant‖ (151-164) in Anderson‘s From Creation to New Creation. 13 There is ―an interesting [rabbinical] debate recorded between Noah and Moses over the relative greatness of the two concedes that Moses is greater because he was able to save both himself and his generation, while Noah saved only himself and his family [Deut. R. 11.3]‖ (Jack P. Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature [Leiden: Brill, 1968], 133-134). 14 ―Moses, who is to save the Israelites by drawing them forth from Egypt, is himself drawn forth from the Nile. Moses will flee from Egypt (Ex 2:15) into the desert where he will meet Yahweh at the Mountain of God (Ex 3:1 f.), just as Israel will later flee from Egypt (Ex 14) into the desert to meet Yahweh at the Mountain of God (Ex 19).‖ (Plastaras, The God of Exodus, 41-42). 15 Rendtorff (―‗Covenant‘ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus,‖ JBL 108/3 [1989]: 392) observes that even Mlw( tyrb is analogous between these covenants. ―God‘s everlasting covenant given to the world and humanity [Gen 9.16] finds its human response in the Sabbath, which is called ‗an everlasting covenant‘ [Ex 31.16] as well.‖ 16 We must be terse at this juncture, since the actual nature and content of the Sinaitic covenant is not within our scope. 17 Marguerite Harl, ―Le Nom de ‗L‘arche‘ de Noe dans La Septante: Les choix lexicaux des traducteurs alexandrins, indices d‘interpretations théologiques?‖ in ALECANDRIA: Hellénisme, judaïsme et christianisme à Alexandrie: Mélanges Claude Mondésert, S.J. (Paris: Cerf, 1987), 24-25. 18 See Rendtorff, ―‗Covenant‘,‖ 389. Harl, ―Le Nom,‖ 39. 290
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.2 Sanctuary 2.2.1 Of Mountains and Temples As was briefly expounded in ch.4, one of the religio-theological convergences among the biblical texts and the two major Levantine cultures (Babylonian and Egyptian) at the time of the writings is the concept of the cultic temple or shrine. This element can now be further analyzed theologically, since a cultic structure along with a mountaintop and covenant setting form a triad. In this section the Exodus texts and contexts shall be seen as a conglomeration while the Genesis text stands alone. Noah‘s vessel is similar to that of Utnapishtim‘s, which is at one point in GE referred to as a palace (ekallu); this reference is tantamount to the Ziggurat, and the Genesis may also be seen to have temple likeness.19 The Genesis grounds atop Mt. Ararat, once the flood begins to subside, and Noah becomes the human representative for the covenant which God establishes. Noah also administered a sacrifice atop the mount near the , and YHWH was soothed by it. Noah, consequently, is faintly portrayed in a priestly manner. Similarly, Utnapishtim grounds upon Mt. Niṣir where, in the character‘s words, ―‗I made a regular offering atop the mountain ziggurat‘‖ (GE XI: 156).20 S.E. Holloway maintains that ziqquratu is always otherwise used to mean temple tower; so, in fact, ―ziggurats were mountains.‖21 Concerning the Genesis in particular, its specifications are corollary to both the Tabernacle and the Temple. Noah, it has oft been mentioned, receives blueprints directly from the Deity to build the , thus having a sacred aspect to it,22 just as Moses received Divine specifications for the Tabernacle.23 Yet despite the common Divine revelation of the Genesis and the Tabernacle, the former has a greater resemblance with the Temple even though the Tabernacle is routinely seen to be the Temple precursor.24 In fact, the Genesis can cogently be seen as a temple-like structure in that both it and the Solomonic temple are three-layered structures (Gen 6.15 || 1 Kgs 6.6) whose dimensions are
19 Holloway (―What Ship Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology,‖ ZAW 103 [1991]: 329) argues, ―the ark in Gilgamesh was conceptualized along the lines of a ziggurat, while that in Genesis was patterned on an ideal Solomonic temple. Both ark narratives are best seen as products of ancient Near Eastern temple ideology, expressing both general and acculturated ideals of design, function and mythology.‖ Cf. Follansbee, ―The Story of the Flood in the Light of Comparative Semitic Mythology‖ in The Flood Myth (ed. A. Dundes), 84. 20 This is Holloway‘s translation (Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 343). 21 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 344. 22 Holloway (―What Ship Goes There,‖ 329) contends that ―in the ancient Near East, when God commands a human being to construct a building, that building is a temple.‖ 23 See e.g., T. Pola, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift, 367. 24 Blenkinsopp (―The Structure of P,‖ CBQ 38/3 [1976]: 286) rightly asserts that the Temple resembles better the Genesis than the Tabernacle. See also Schüle, Die Urgeschichte, 127-128. 291
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
proportionate: L > W > H (Gen 6.14 || 1 Kgs 6.6).25 J. Blenkinsopp observes a trilateral correlation and elucidates the following. Comparison with the dimensions of the wilderness sanctuary (100 × 50 × 30 cubits) and Solomon‘s temple (60 × 20 × 30 cubits) suggest an underlying idea similar to the Gilgamesh vessel though, given the respective functions of the three buildings, and the fact that the wilderness sanctuary was mobile, we would not expect an exact correspondence. The height is, however, identical in all three, the wilderness sanctuary has the same breadth as the ark, it is one third its length, and Solomon‘s temple is one fifth as long.26 In Exodus 2-15* the salvation and liberation process which culminates with covenant at Mt. Sinai begins with deliverance via at the Nile and continues with communal deliverance at the Reed Sea.27 Atop Mt. Sinai Moses is the representative of the covenant that he and YHWH/God conjointly cut. During that process YHWH/God discloses blueprints for the construction of the Tabernacle, i.e., the Tent of Meeting; also, the Levites are later identified as the tribe of priests, of which Moses (and Aaron) belongs. Thus, like Noah, Moses is saved by the instrumentality of , with faint priestly characteristics, atop a mountain with a Divine blueprint for a cultic structure. For Noah the cultic structure and are one and the same, for Moses they are diverse: he experiences while the family of Israel (like the family of Noah) shares in the cultic sanctuary. Moreover, both these structures possess and 28 provide hskm, ―covering.‖ The Song(s) at the Sea serves to reinforce the triadic relationship between mountain, covenant, and cultic structure. In Ex 15.17-18 mention is made of YHWH‘s mountain of inheritance (Ktlxn rhb), fixed place of dwelling (tb#l Nwkm), and sanctuary (#dqm); and, YHWH reigns forever and ever, presumably from this locale. The aggregation of sanctuary and mountain in Ex 15.17 is noteworthy. The exact geographical/topological referent is
25 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 348-349. 26 Blenkinsopp, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11 (New York: T&T Clark, 2011), 138. J.D. Levenson (Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence [Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988], 75) notes, ―it is striking that apart from the emergence of land in Genesis 8:13, the other Pentateuchal event that occurs in Nisan is the erection of the Tabernacle… If the vernal New Year‘s Day was thought to be the day creation began or was consummated, then it would be fitting for the original temple to have gone up that day.‖ Cf. also idem, ―Structure,‖ 283; Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 348-349; Bosshard-Nepustil, Vor uns die Sintflut, 174; Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1–11.26 (NAC, 1; Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holdman Publishers, 1996), 363. 27 Arie C. Leder (―The Coherence of Exodus: Narrative Unity and Meaning,‖ CTJ 36/2 [2001]: 258) maintains, ―the reference to God‘s dwelling place indicates that building, especially royal construction (cf. 15:18), is within the scope of the narrative‘s address of the problem defined in Exodus 1-2.‖ 28 See Gen 8.13; Ex 26.14; 35.11; 36.19; 39.34; 40.19; Num 3.25; 4.25. 292
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
greatly debated (see ch.5 2.3.2.3.1). Mt. Zion is the culmination of this declaration of Ex 15.17-18, and yet Ex 15.17-18 may well also find the first fulfillment in Mt. Sinai. Actually, 29 the Tabernacle is called sanctuary (#dqm; Ex 25.8), while the Solomonic temple is said to be a fixed dwelling place (√b#y + Nwkm; 1 Kgs 8.13, 39, 43, 49 || 2 Chron 6.2, 30, 33, 39). Germane in Formen to Ex 15*, as has already been mentioned (in ch.5 2.3.1.5), are Enuma Elish and the Baal Epic. In both the Babylonian and Ugaritic equivalent, the chief god splits his watery foe in twain or defeats a twin watery foe and goes on to build a temple atop a mountain, thereby exercising sovereignty. Marduk‘s temple is established upon an undesignated topography in Babylon (EE V:110-140 [ANET, 502]); for Baal his temple location is at the summit of Mt. Zaphon (ANET, 133-134). In light of this, the grounded atop Mt. Ararat30 and even the Tabernacle being revealed atop Mt. Sinai have the potential of possessing a comparable semblance to their Levantine counterparts. One tantalizing feature to Baal‘s temple, moreover, is the window. Baal is first indecisive, then adamantly against having a window in the temple, and then he eventually capitulates to having a window installed in his temple on Mt. Zaphon. The reason for such waffling is due his waxing and waning fear that Prince Yamm and Judge River may revivify and revolt against Baal, attacking through any opening the palace of Baal might have (ANET, 134-135).
Noah‘s also has a window (NwOl@xa; Gen 8.6b). On the one hand, Baal ―opens a casement in the house, A window within the pa[lace]. Baal op[ens] rifts in [the cloud]s. Ba[al gives] forth his holy voice, Baal discharges the ut[terance of his li]ps‖ (ANET, 135). On the other hand, ―Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made, and sent forth a raven‖ (Gen 8.6b-7a). In both literary contexts, therefore, anchored upon a mountain is a temple or temple-like structure with a curiously conspicuous window.31 The materials and elements of Baal‘s palace as well as the inaugural ceremony for the temple and the god-king have several points of intersection with the Solomonic temple, besides. The Solomonic temple is also, again, sat upon a mountain (Zion/ Jerusalem), and it too features windows (ynIiwOl@xa; 1 Kgs 6.4); additionally, Ezekiel‘s vision of the new temple contains windows (*nIiwOl@xa; Ezek 40.16, 22, 25, 29, 33, 36; 41.16, 26). Furthermore, Baal‘s temple is constructed with the reputed cedars of Lebanon and features silver and gold (ANET,
29 See also Lev 12.4; 16.33; 19.30; 20.3; 21.12, 23; 26.2, 31; Num 3.38; 10.21; 18.1, 29; 19.20; Josh 24.26. 30 It was addressed in ch.2 that for the mountain of Gen 8 to be named is quite significant, since myths are reticent of divulging specific references such as geography. 31 See M.G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 225-227. 293
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
134, 135), just as Solomon‘s temple was fabricated with cedars of Lebanon (1 Kgs 5-7) and possessing much gold and silver (1 Kgs 6-7, 9-10). The inaugural ceremony of both Solomon and Baal‘s temple and reign are analogous, moreover; each have a large-scale sacrificial ritual where myriads of animals are immolated for the glory of G/god and/or king (ANET, 134 || 1 Kgs 8).32 From a different (posterior) angle, the Solomonic temple mirrors, naturally, the Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting—the Temple is, of course, the permanent (at least in the sense of stationary) equivalent of the Tabernacle, a temple conceived by David and brought into effect by Solomon. So, if YHWH‘s holy abode, mountain, sanctuary has (ultimate) culmination in Zion, then there is yet another covenantal connection. For, at Mount Zion God establishes the Davidic covenant promising there shall always be an heir to rule in Jerusalem (2 Sam 7); this covenant begins to be realized by Solomon, who, in turn, builds the Temple of the LORD. Thus, mountain, covenant, and sanctuary all converge. To review, amongst the texts in focus (and their larger contexts) there is a theological- conceptual convergence of covenant, mountain, and sacred structure. It is important to recognize that with the covenant in both Gen 6-9* and Ex 19ff. there is featured a mountain, a mountain (Ararat/Sinai) that either has direct or indirect connection with a covenant ceremony (Noahic/Sinaitic) and a cultic structure (/Tabernacle)—both Divinely blueprinted. In Ex 15* what is prefigured is YHWH‘s mountain, sanctuary, holy abode (v.17); and this may find its first application to Mt. Sinai/Horeb. The Baal cycle resembles Ex 15* in that the Ugaritic epic has the following schema: the deity effects victory by—not over— water, exercises sovereign rule, and erects a temple atop a mount.33 The Genesis Flood and the Baal Cycle also share the foregrounded detail of the structure‘s window ( ≈ ziggurat || temple). The final reference to the sanctuary/mountain/holy abode, in Ex 15.17, is congruent with the Solomonic temple atop Mt. Zion (with an echo of the Davidic covenant?). Consequently, , Tabernacle, and Temple amalgamate as corollary sanctuary structures.34
32 Even at this point there is ilk with Noah; for, he sacrifices an abundance of animals, relatively speaking—six pairs (keeping the seven pair alive) of all clean animals (cf. Gen 7.2-3 and Gen 8.20). 33 Römer, ―Exodus Narrative,‖ 168: ―As in Mesopotamian mythology, the victory over the sea in Exodus 14 is preparation for the building of the sanctuary in Exodus 25ff.‖ 34 Römer, ―Exodus Narrative,‖ 160: ―Genesis 1, Exodus 14, and Exodus 35-40* could therefore be understood as a triptych: creation, victory over the sea, and establishment of the creator god‘s sanctuary.‖ For further parallels between Gen 1 and the Tabernacle, see Blum, ―Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings‖ in The Strata of the Priestly Writings (eds. S. Shectman and J.S. Baden), 40; Baden, ―Identifying the Original Stratum of P,‖ 17. 294
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
2.2.2 Of Shrines and Ceremonies The foregoing Theologie Kritik of the complex issue of sanctuary (covenant, mountain, and sacred structure [i.e., , Tabernacle, and Temple]) has admittedly engaged more thoroughly the Genesis than the Exodus one. At this point, the Exodus of Moses shall undergo further analysis beyond it being the initial event to instigate a long and slow collective liberation which culminates in covenant with an eventual cultic structure (Tabernacle) materializing. Now, (more of) the theological aspects that come to bear on the Pentateuch/Torah from Egyptian culture and cult shall be examined. It has been briefly elucidated (in ch.4 2.2) that the religio-theological setting in which the Moses infancy event were most likely to occur were the Opet festival, where the pharaoh would be pulled upriver from Karnak to Luxor to there sacrifice and worship to the Egyptian god and goddess, Amon and Mut respectively, then subsequently float downriver to Karnak to participate in the same. It was also maintained that A.S. Yahuda‘s interpretation is reasonable and probable: that the Egyptian princess (of Ex 2) thought the small floating vessel to be a shrine which enclosed an idol (a Götterschrein), an image of a god or goddess which had accidently fallen off the pharaoh‘s barque during the ceremony processions—thus, the mother of the infant had cleverly devised the to be perceived as a Götterschrein. There are, nonetheless, more intricacies to the Opet festival which have bearing on the Sitz im Leben of Ex 2*. An additional detail in the return trip of the Opet festival serves to advance the theological understanding of the Exodus . ―The shrine of the boat of Amon is decorated on the outside with figures of the goddess Maat (Truth) with outstretched wings,‖ Campbell remarks, ―like those which the O.T. calls, ‗the wings of the cherubims‘ that covered the Ark of the Israelites.‖35 Maat (not to be confused with Mut [see ch.4 2.2]), is indeed the goddess of Truth.36 A greater Egyptian resemblance to the winged cherubim, though, would be that of Isis and Nephthys, the weeping sisters, positioned at both ends of the bier in which their brother Osiris was lain—with wings folded over top of the chest.37
35 Campbell, Miraculous Birth, 125-126. See also Wilson, ―Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom,‖ JNES 3/4 (1944): 203. 36 Pinch (Egyptian Mythology, 168-169) notes, ―maat can mean truth, justice, righteousness, order, balance, and cosmic law. The goddess Maat was the beloved daughter of Ra, the creator sun god. She traveled with him in the sun barque, delighting his heart and giving ‗life to his nostrils.‘‖ Also, Atwell (―An Egyptian Source,‖ 458) elucidates, ―Nun and Ma„at in a sense define each other as opposites. Nun represents watery formlessness, and Ma„at the gleaming order of creation…‖ 37 C.J. Bleeker, ―Isis and Nephthys as Wailing Women,‖ Numen 5 (1958): 11-15. Cf. The Lamentations of Isis and Nephthys in Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol.3: The Late Period (Los Angeles, 295
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
38 The tale of Osiris, preserved by Plutarch (PERI ISIDOS KAI OSIRIDOS), is the broader context of the figures Isis and Nephthys; it relays the following.39 Osiris, king of Egypt, was conspired against; and through a bizarre series of events he becomes encased in a wooden coffer40 suffocating him to death. The coffer containing Osiris was cast into the river, floated down the Nile, through the Great (Mediterranean) Sea, and eventually came to shore at Byblos (in Syria).41 Immediately upon beaching a heath or Erica tree shot up engulfing the coffer within. Grieving sister(s) Isis (and Nephthys) went searching for Osiris,42 even before he came to his resting place, and was guided by a few means to Byblos. Meanwhile, the king of Byblos had cut out a segment of the handsome, young tree—with Osiris‘ coffer enveloped therein—and used it as a buttress for his palace. Isis, wife (and sister) of Osiris, came into society with the queen of Byblos, also through a bizarre series of events, and eventually extracted the coffer from the wooden pillar. Placing the coffer in a boat,43 Isis set upon a return trip. Along the way, in a place of ―solitude she opened the chest and pressed her face to that of Osiris, she embraced him and began to cry.‖44 Once back, Typhon,45 husband of Nephthys and instigator of the insurrection, discovered the coffer, ―recognized the body, and having cut it into fourteen parts, he scattered them.‖46 Isis recovered every part save one (the penis) from the Nile, and gave the dismembered Osiris a proper burial. In the end, Osiris is considered to be a god of the Nile, judgment (in the underworld),47 and resurrection (i.e. new life and fertility).48
Calif.: University of California Press, 1980), 116-121. For an image see Budge, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection, vol. I (New York: G.P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1911), 3. 38 See J. Gwyn Griffiths, Plutarch‟s De Iside et Osiride (Great Britian: University of Wales Press, 1970). 39 Cf. Budge, Osiris I, 1-15. See also Meik Gerhards, Die Aussetzungeschichte des Mose: Literar- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Schlüsseltext des nichtpriesterlichen Tetrateuch (WMANT, 109; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), 248-249 (cf. ibid., 240-247). 40 This receptacle is called a coffin (sorw=|/o\n; §8, 15, 16, [39]), chest (la/rnaka/oj; §13-15, 17 | kibwti/w|; §17 [39]), and box (a0ggei=on; §14, 18 [i9era\n ki/sthn; §39]). These translational values (i.e. English words) are Griffith‘s (Plutarch‟s De Iside et Osiride). 41 An alternate reading renders Byblos as a papyrus delta in Egypt; see Budge, Osiris I, 16. 42 Though Nephthys is mentioned in §14 (Griffith, Plutarch‟s De Iside et Osiride, 140/141) it is an obscure reference and a such peripheral character that she does not feature dominantly in the tale (in contrast to the passing details in the process of Plutarch‘s storytelling). It is in tangential material that Isis and Nephthys have egalitarian roles. 43 This vessel is called ploi=on (§16), ba/ridi papurinh (§18), and papuri/noij ska/fesi (§18). 44 Griffith, Plutarch‟s De Iside et Osiride, 143. 45 Typhon in Egyptian is Tebha, which phonetically resembles (Budge, Osiris I, 2 n.2). 46 Griffith, Plutarch‟s De Iside et Osiride, 145. 47 ―The conception of the judgment of Osiris is very, very old, but no representation of it older than the XVIIIth dynasty is extant‖ (Budge, Osiris I, 315). See Budge, Osiris I, 312-331; S.G.F. Brandon ―A Problem of the Osirian Judgment of the Dead,‖ Numen 5 (1958): 110-127. 48 Cf. Budge, Osiris I, 15-23; Griffith, Plutarch‟s De Iside et Osiride, 146/147-180/181. See below. 296
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
In the Great Hall of Heliopolis Isis and Nephthys and Osiris figure in a judgment scene. In this depiction ―seated within a shrine, is the god Osiris, whose body is held up, or embraced, by the goddesses Isis and Nephthys. …The shrine is in the form of a funeral chest, the front side of which is removed so that the god, who is drawn in profile, may be seen. The roof or cover of the shrine is rounded, and upon it rests a hawk, with outspread wings.‖49 The fusion of a shrine with an extraordinary person within is significant. Despite the nexuses between the events surrounding the Exodus and the chest of Osiris with winged sisters encircled, the main contrast between it and the Opet festival in which Maat figures on the pharaoh‘s barque is that this is a jubilant occasion, not one of mourning; even still, for the two women orbiting the Exodus the situation was somber, if not funerary—ḏbȝ.t meaning coffin: the infant within could just as readily been killed as saved.50 In addition to both Isis and Nephthys and Maat resembling the cherubim on the lid of the ark of the covenant, the ark of the covenant may also be seen as a projection from Moses‘ .51 In the Egyptian milieu Maat (Truth) figures with outstretched wings over the shrine of Amon‘s barque;52 in Exodus cherubim with outstretched wings are affixed atop the Ark of the Covenant, which contains the Truth of YHWH/God: the Ten Commandments.53 Further, projecting into another era, the Torah scrolls are housed in, what is called in Rabbinic Hebrew, the tevah.54 Thus not only the epitome of the Law (the Ten Commandments) but even the Torah (Pentateuch)—as the Truth of YHWH/ God—occupies a tevah, just as Moses, the human (representative) lawgiver (like Osiris), occupied a . In fact, even the so-called
49 Budge, Osiris I, 319. Cf. further François Lissarrague, ―Women, Boxes, Containers: Some Signs and Metaphors‖ in Pandora: Women in Classical Greece (ed. E.D. Reeder; Baltimore, Maryland: The Walters Art Gallery & Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995), 95, 97. 50 ―In cradle or coffin the living son waits on the waters decreed to drown him‖ (Trible, ―Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows‖ in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy; The Feminist Companion to the Bible, vol.6 [ed. A. Brenner; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994], 167). 51 Alice Grenfell (―Egyptian Mythology and the Bible,‖ The Monist 16/2 [1906]: 173) relay how ―[a]t the Provincial Congress held at Lyons, 1878, M. Lieblein…gives an illustration of the arrangement of the interior of the Egyptian ark on the processional boat, which is precisely similar to that of the Hebrew ark, as described in Ex. xxv. 20-22.‖ 52 ―Maāt, [is] the daughter of Rā, and of Osiris‖ (Budge, Osiris I, 318). For a graphic see Hays, ―The Covenant with Mut,‖ 222. 53 In addition the Ark of the Covenant contained a jar of manna and Aaron‘s staff which had budded and bore almonds (Heb 9.4; cf. Ex 16.33; Num 17.10). 54 The transliteration is different only in order to distinguish the biblical vessel from the rabbinical one. Propp, Exodus 1-18 (AB, 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999), 149; Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 280; Durham, Exodus (WBC 3; Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987), 16. Cf. also Lissarrague, ―Women, Boxes, Containers,‖ 94; Raphael Loewe, ―Ark, Archaisms and Misappropriations‖ in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman (JSOTSup, 333; eds. A. Papoport-Albert and G. Greenberg; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 131-145; Harl, ―Le Nom,‖ 20-21, 35. 297
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Book of the Dead was stored with corpses in sarcophagi!55 The discussion comes full-circle, consequently, regarding cultic sanctuary or sacred structure: both biblical s have portent to the most sacred object within the Tabernacle and also the Temple itself—the ark/chest of the covenant. 2.2.3 Noah (Genesis ) ≈ Osiris (Exodus ) In sum, the Genesis has affinities with the Babylonian ark and the Exodus has affinities with the Osirian chest. The former pair portents to a temple concept wherein a god- like figure dwells, and the latter is reminiscent of a sacred shrine which houses truth (the lawgiver). Though, perhaps the above two sanctuaries find further convergence. (Though the below content cannot be developed extensively, it is briefly registered nonetheless in attempts to converge the somewhat divergent theologoumenon of the two s.) M. Milman has set Noah and Osiris in parallel stating that these two figures are ―frequently connected with the origin of mankind‖ since ―our patriarch bears, as the regenerator of mankind, largely the character of the dying and reviving god worshiped all over…‖, for example Osiris in Egypt.56 Milman goes on to expound many connections between the Hebrew Bible and Levantine religion; specific Noah–Osiris affinities are elements in the Osiris legend and the pericope after the Flood, Gen 9.18-29 (nP).57 Focusing on the floating vessel, Milman sees harmonization between Utnapishtim‘s ark and the ferry- boat of the Egyptian divinity—both steersmen are destined enter into an immortal state.58 This Levantine interrelationship ipso facto binds the biblical s closer together conceptually and theologically; for, both Noah and Moses (who is like Osiris) are figureheads of new life come out of death-waters culminated in covenant. 2.3 Typologies At the outset of this section we must provide disclaimer and definition for the term ―typology.‖ Typology has been nebulously understood and used by some to result in very loose, and even non-type-like, equivalents in scripture.59 But typology can be—and is—a
55 Paul Carus, ―The Conception of the Soul and the Belief in Resurrection among the Egyptians,‖ The Monist 15/3 (1905): 411-412. 56 M. Milman, ―Noah and His Family,‖ The Monist 29/2 (1919): 260. 57 These similarities include: the protagonist (1) being an expert in agriculture; (2) creating wine; (3) procreating incestuously in analogous settings: a sarcophagus in one case and a tent in the other (Milman, ―Noah and His Family,‖ 260-265). 58 Milman, ―Noah and His Family,‖ 268: ―The Flood hero thus has become a master of the subterranean regions, exactly like ‗Osiris, the Lord of Eternity,‘ who now sits on his throne, at the source of the Nile and of all waters, guarding there the plant and source of life.‖ 59 Elizabeth Achtemeier, ―Typology,‖ IDB, 927: ―the modern use of the world ‗typology‘ is sometimes misleading, conjuring up earlier fanciful interpretations, and it would perhaps be better for scholars to speak of correspondences, analogies, foreshadowing, and fulfillment.‖ 298
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
controlled and illuminating method of interpretation. Typology may be defined as the ―form of biblical interpretation which deals with the correspondences between traditions concerning divinely appointed persons, events, and institutions, within the framework of salvation history.‖60 Correspondingly, it is the manner of ―setting forth the biblical history of salvation so that some of its earlier phases are seen as anticipations of latter phases, or some later phase as the recapitulation or fulfilment of an early one.‖61 ―Typology,‖ as G. von Rad explicates, ―shows itself to be astoundingly free of attachment to the word or the letter, yet bound to a much greater degree by the historical sense.‖62 Typological phenomena do transpire within the Hebrew Bible, yet it is exponentially more common (and internally elucidated) in the Christian Bible with the New Testament.63 Henceforth, the typological issue of creation–(re)new(ed) creation in the Hebrew Bible shall first be addressed; subsequently, typologies in the New Testament will be expounded, those being baptism and traces of resurrection—both actually portentous of new creation—however literal or figurative. 2.3.1 New Creation In every chapter where a Pentateuchal text was exegeted (Gen 6-9*, Ex 2*, Ex 15*) one of the socio-religious or theological aspects of Redaktion/Komposition criticism was renewed creation and/or new creation. Whether in the Flood or the Foundling narratives or the Song(s), a person or persons emerge safely through death-dealing waters (the first two by means, of course, of ) to find new life and (in) a new world to an extent. With Genesis, Noah‘s family is seen as the new humanity in a (re)new(ed) world; with Moses, his life is rescued and lives a new and very different life than would otherwise have been the case; with the Israelites, they emerge on the far side of the Sea of Reeds where the enemy had just been defeated by God and are in a newly liberated state as opposed to being enslaved.64 But whether the author or compositor is P or nP, DtrH or Deutero-Isaiah creation is a theological framework or template that is utilized time and again throughout the Hebrew Bible—and a
60 Achtemeier, ―Typology,‖ 926. Cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 352-353. 61 F.F. Bruce, ―Typology,‖ IBD, 3:1602. So Achtemeier, ―Typology,‖ 927. 62 Gerhard von Rad (trans. John Bright), ―The Interpretation of the Old Testament: II. Typological Interpretations of the Old Testament,‖ Int 15/2 (1961) 177. Cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation, 352-353. 63 See Rendtorff, ―A Christian Approach to the Theology of Hebrew Scriptures‖ in Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures (SBLSymS, 8; eds. A.O. Bellis and J.S. Kaminsky; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2000), 137-151. 64 ―Comme Noe, Moise est l‘initiateur d‘une humanité nouvelle‖ because of the (Andre Lacocque, ―L‘idee Directrice de Exode I a IV,‖ VT 15/3 [1965]: 348). Cf. Enns, Exodus Retold, 112-118. 299
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
portrait of new creation is primarily achieved by depicting the rising from a death-like state, often imaged by water or even exile. A retrospective typology of new creation is the first creation—an ordered cosmos arising, as it were, out of a watery mass (Gen 1.1-2).65 The creation poem of Genesis 1 clearly has an antithetical correlation to the Flood story. The creation account also has similarities with the Reed Sea crossing; for, in the former ―God creates the world, while in Exodus 14 Yhwh creates Israel as his people by making them cross the waters.‖66 So, passing through life-threatening waters, in each case, is a type of new creation.67 In Deutero-Isaiah God‘s deliverance/salvation and liberation of the remnant from exile is envisaged as a new creation.68 Emerging out of exile does not actually involve any water crossing or watery destruction of the foe, nevertheless arising out of a symbolic death- state is portrayed with aquatic terminology. Comparable to the condition in both Genesis (6- 9*) and Exodus (2-15*), the chosen/favoured people of YHWH/God are delivered from a state of corruption/violence and/or slavery/exile to a position of revivification or liberation—a new exodus.69 There are a few examples of this typological language in Isaiah 43 (vv.1-3a, 15-17). But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: ―Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine. When you pass through the waters I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you. For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. …I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King.‘
65 We say ―retrospective‖ because P‘s material of Gen 1-11 is held to be some of the youngest, if not the latest, writings of the Hebrew Bible (see ch.2 2.4). 66 Römer, ―Exodus Narrative,‖ 168; see also Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992), 81-82. Römer (ibid., 168-169) explicates further that when the Israelites crossed the Sea they traversed in a left-ward direction. And ‗left‘ (semo‟l) is also used for the North (Gen 14,15; Josh 19,27), and the ‗right‘ can designate the South (Josh 17,7). These designations presuppose an orientation towards the East is the place of life, whereas the West (which can be designated by the word yam) designates death and hell. Israel‘s passage through the water corresponds then to a procession from the West to the East, from death to life… 67 Wakeman, God‟s Battle, 126: ―The Reed Sea is the monster which is divided into parts and so ordered, its power broken; it is the symbol of the oppressive tyrant who had to be split open that Israel might be born.‖ 68 See P.B. Harner, ―Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah,‖ VT 17/3 (1967): 298-306; Theodore M. Ludwig, ―The Traditions of the Establishing of the Earth in Deutero-Isaiah,‖ JBL 92/3 (1973): 345-357. 69 The concept of new exodus is analogous to new creation. Batto (Slaying the Dragon, 110) attests: ―The dominant motif of Deutero-Isaiah is appropriately a new ‗exodus‘ by which Yahweh will once again free his people from captivity in a foreign land. But inseparably intertwined with this exodus motif are creation motifs.‖ See further, Bernhard W. Anderson, ―Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah‖ in Israel‟s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg (eds. B.W. Anderson and W. Harrelson; New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), 177-195. 300
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Thus says the LORD, who makes a way in the sea, a path in the mighty waters, who brings forth chariot and horse, army and warrior; they lie down, they cannot rise, they are extinguished, quenched like a wick:‖ The parlance of redemption, passing through waters, mighty waters, horse and chariot, and even King-Savior (cf. Ex 15.18) all figure in the new creation purporting texts of Genesis (6- 9*) and Exodus (2-15*). Naturally, in subsequent chapters of Deutero-Isaiah, and within the framework of salvation as new creation, are those important sections which interface with and/or influence the Flood Narrative (Isa 54.9-10) and the Song(s) at the Sea (Isa 51.9-10). In sum, salvation is typological of new exodus, new creation.70 2.3.2 Baptism It has been remarked that in each of the Pentateuchal texts examined a religio-theological theme emerges along the lines of creation–de-creation–re-creation. This theological theme is mainly achieved in that deep waters are imbued with death connotations, the survival of which consequently possesses the opposite inference: (re)new(ed) life of a person or persons. This same motif is converted into typology by the New Testament writers to speak specifically of baptism;71 in fact, both the Flood story and the Reed Sea crossing are utilized as typologies of baptism. In 1 Peter 3 the apostle (of the same name) cites the story of Noah and the Flood, employing it as doctrinal foundation for and the image of baptism. Peter writes, …God‘s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds [a0nti/tupon] to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (vv.20- 21; cf. 2 Pet 2.5; 3.6; Heb 11.7) Antitype here does not mean non-type. Instead ―[i]n the language of typology, the earlier series of events constituted a ‗type‘ of the latter; the latter series was an ‗antitype‘ of the earlier. Or it may be said that the successive epochs of salvation-history disclose a recurring pattern of divine activity which the NT writers believed to have found its definitive expression in their own day.‖72 Thus, Noah et al. passing through death-waters via unto
70 Knierim (―Old Testament Theology,‖ 30) states: ―Blessing [like we see in the Noahic covenant] belongs to the theology of creation, whereas liberation belongs to the biblical soteriology that is connected with the theology of history fallen out of the order of creation. The theology of creation is not replaced by soteriology. Rather, it is the reason for soteriology.‖ 71 Harl, ―Le Nom,‖ 26, 36-37. 72 F.F. Bruce, ―Typology,‖ 1602. 301
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
(re)new(ed) life is typological of Jesus‘ resurrection and one being raised to new life in Christ.73 Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10, maintains that the Reed Sea crossing (and the [Shekinah] cloud inundating?) is a typology of baptism. He states, …our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food and all drank the same supernatural drink. For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ. Nevertheless with most of them God was not pleased; for they were overthrown in the wilderness. Now these things are warnings [tu/poi] for us, not to desire evil as they did. (vv.1-6) In these instances, there is the threat of death and then the LORD providentially provides sustenance or an escape which elongates life—hence a continuation of life or, in a sense, even new life. These events are examples or types (typos/oi) of something like it—exceeding it—and in both places the culminating agent is Jesus and the new, eschatological salvation. Both these baptism typologies exist (i.e., are constructed) because of Jesus, the Christ. As J.E. Alsup asserts, ―[t]he reference to antitypon in 1 Pet 3:21 typologically links Christian baptism (1 Cor 10:1-13) with the deliverance of Noah from the flood ‗through the resurrection of Jesus‘.‖74 Baptism symbolizes the death of old life and the birth (or rising) of a new life—in Christ (Rom 6.3-5). Hence, baptism itself is a typology of resurrection. 2.3.3 Resurrection Overtones That a resurrection overtone is mentioned in context of the present study may at first blush appear to be a logical leap.75 However, if baptism is an explicit type (anititype) of the Flood (the archetype), as well as the Crossing, then that sign of regeneration—which is also advanced as typological resurrection (Rom 6.4-5; Col 2.12)—can also purport to something like a resurrection. Thus, resurrection may be two typological degrees removed from , but it is still a noteworthy discussion to be had, especially since in the Bible is a contra-
73 J.P. Lewis (―Noah and the Flood in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Tradition,‖ BA 47/4 [1984]: 228) relays how ―the church said Noah was a type of Christ, and the eight in the ark were a type of the eighth day (Sunday) on which Christ was raised from the dead.‖ Cf. H.S. Benjamins, ―Noah, the Ark, and the Flood in Early Christian Theology: The Ship of the Church in the Making‖ in Interpretations of the Flood (TBN, 1; eds. F.G. Martínez and G.P. Luttikhuizen; Leiden: Brill, 1998), 148-149. 74 John E. Alsup, ―Typology,‖ ABD 4:684. There are other terms and citations in the New Testament concerning type (which Alsup elucidates in his article), however the above those related to our three Pentateuchal texts: Gen 6-9*, Ex 2*, Ex 15*. Alsup (ibid., 683) notes that ―typos and its cognates‖ are ―closely tied to usage as technical terms‖. 75 For allegorical treatments of resurrection in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, see Wendell W. Frerichs, ―Death and Resurrection in the Old Testament,‖ WW 11/1 (1991): 14-22; Harris Birkeland, ―The Belief in the Resurrection of the Dead in the Old Testament,‖ Studia Theologica 3/1 (1949): 60-78. 302
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
coffin (see 2.4 below). In fact, Egyptian literature, Rabbinic tradition, and New Testament doctrine (which has just been discussed) all attest to this theological aspect. 2.3.3.1 Resurrection in the Talmud In the Talmud it is repeatedly asserted that the doctrine of ―‗the Resurrection is deducible from Torah‘ (Sanh. 90b)‖;76 correspondingly, it is also claimed in Rabbinic tradition that if ―‗a person repudiated belief in the Resurrection of the dead, he will have no share in the Resurrection‘ (Sanh. 90a).‖77 These two maxims combined denote (rather, coerce) the notion that resurrection—however literal or figurative—can be found in the Pentateuch.78 What, then, are the Pentateuchal texts which convey traces great or small purporting to resurrection? One famed text which allegedly bespeaks resurrection is Ex 15.1. The Talmud of Ex 15.1 (b. Sanhedrin 91b; cf. Mekilta de Ishmael, Shirata 1.1-10) commentates ―R[abbi] Meïr asked, Whence is the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, ‗Then will Moses and the children of Israel sing this song unto the Lord‘ (Exod. xv. 1). It is not said ‗sang‘ but ‗will sing‘; hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah.‖79 The crux for finding resurrection here lies in the verbal tense: ―‗Then Moses sang (šār)‘ is not written here, but rather ‗Then Moses will sing [yāšîr]‘‖80—the future time referring to the age to come. Another evidence, according to the Talmudic exegetes, that this passage exudes resurrection has to do with the verse‘s initial particle: z)f. When, at the end of Exodus 14, there is such overwhelming destruction of the Egyptians, and death is forcefully pronounced—it is the end of the story…yet, for the account to go on and for the next word to 81 be then (z)) purports, apparently, resurrection.
J.D. Levenson rightly evaluates this interpretation of z) ―makes for exceedingly bad philology‖, the discrepancy of verbal tense referring to another era ―highly imaginative exegesis‖, and to insist on resurrection here is surely ―forced.‖82 In short, the above Talmudic
76 Abraham Cohen, Everyman‟s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (Schocken Books: New York, 1995), 358, et passim. 77 A. Cohen, Everyman‟s Talmud, 357. 78 A. Cohen, (Everyman‟s Talmud, 357) cogitates: An apparent reason why the Sadducees rejected the doctrine [of resurrection] was that it was not taught, so they alleged, in the Pentateuch, and was therefore part of the Oral Torah which they repudiated. This view was strongly controverted by the Rabbis. The Talmud even remarks: ―There is no section of the (written) Torah which does not imply the doctrine of Resurrection, but we have not the capacity to expound it in this sense‖ (Sifré Deut. § 306; 132a). 79 A. Cohen, Everyman‟s Talmud, 359. 80 Levenson, Resurrection, 27. 81 This does not really take into account Ex 14.31, the last verse of Exodus 14: ―And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did against the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD and in his servant Moses.‖ 82 Levenson, Resurrection, 27, 26, 33. 303
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
interpretation is a conspicuous case of eisegesis. Nevertheless, in terms of thematic development Ex 1-15* can be seen not only as the prototype of salvation but also an archetype of typological resurrection. After all, ―The Egyptians are swallowed by the underworld, whereas Yhwh‘s people emerge freshly ‗redeemed‘ (v. 13) and ‗created‘ (v. 16) from the realm of the dead.‖83 The Song(s) at the Sea cannot, therefore, purport literal resurrection. 2.3.3.2 Osiris and Isis: Egyptian Resurrection The tradition of Osiris and Isis has been briefly outlined above, and it shall be revisited at this juncture too. This legend was discussed because the coffer holding Osiris with Isis and Nephthys at its terminal points resembles the Ark of the Covenant with the cherubim atop the lid touching outstretched wings at the centre; now the tale of Osiris and Isis is taken up for its relevance to the Foundling story (Ex 2*) specifically.84 In particular what is of interest is the Egyptian doctrine of resurrection as personified in Osiris; additionally, the ―mythologie égyptienne associe entre eux les éléments Nil-Osiris-Royauté‖ is significant.85 Burgeoning from the tale of Osiris and Isis, the Conflict of Horus and Seth is effectively the sequel to the former (or is the former a prequel to the latter?).86 Osiris becomes posthumously identified as a god with a multifaceted jurisdiction in the area of new life. A couple facets of new life attributed to Osiris is the afterlife judge87 and the fertility
83 Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21 (Studies in Biblical Literature, 101; New York: Peter Lang, 2007), 31. Cf. also Holladay, ―‘Ereṣ—Underworld,‖ 124. 84 Plutarch‘s De Iside et Osiride was not included in the Formen/Guttungengeschechte of ch.3 because it is much more disparate that similar to Ex 2.1-10 (cf. Redford, ―Literary Motif,‖ 210, 220). Additionally, the tale of Isis and Osiris in its preserved transmission is late (mid-first century CE), and even though it was oral tradition for a time and originally much older it is still impossible, with the available evidence, to know when this tradition first emerged. The major disparities are: [1] Osiris was a grown man, and Moses was an infant; [2] Osiris dies, while Moses is saved; [3] Osiris‘ corpse is dismembered, but Moses is weaned and grows. The similarities, though, are as follows: [1] both Osiris and Moses are afloat upon the Nile in a wooden coffer; [2] Osiris and Moses both have two familial women attend them whilst in the coffer, particularly a sister; [3] each protagonist finds a measure of rescue in a foreign place; [4] Moses and Osiris‘ infant son (by Nephthys) are exposed; [5] Queen Isis, like the Egyptian princess of Ex 2*, adopt the newborn male; [6] while Moses is breastfed by his mother after his rescue, Isis, in her rescue effort of Osiris, masquerades as breastfeeding another‘s baby; [7] Osiris becomes a symbol of resurrection (via the death-dealing waters of the Nile–judgment in the underworld–fertilization of crops by means of the Nile), just as Moses is raised to new life. 85 Andre Lacocque, ―L‘idee,‖ 347. 86 See ―The Contendings of Horus and Seth‖ in Alan H. Gardiner, The Chester Beatty Papyri, No.1. London: Oxford University Press, 1931. For this story‘s interrelationship with De Isis et Osiride, see J. Gwyn Griffiths, The Conflict of Horus and Seth: From Egyptian to Classical Sources (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960), 4-7. 87 ―Osiris appears occasionally as a god who is dreaded by the dead because he has power over them‖ (Griffiths, The Conflict, 22 [27]); see also, ibid., 54-84, esp. 58-65. Cf. Paul Pierret (trans. Howard Osgood), ―The Dogma of the Resurrection among the Ancient Egyptians,‖ The Old Testament Student 4/6 (1885): 267- 275; Brandon, ―Osirian Judgment,‖ 110-127; Mrs. Cornelius Stevenson, ―An Egyptian Mummy-Case,‖ Bulletin of the Pennsylvania Museum 7/28 (1909): 67-70. 304
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
god, especially of wheat and barley;88 while these are fascinating aspects of Osiris they have zero to little bearing on our thesis, so we by-pass these aspects for two others that do bear on . Other cultic or theological facets of Osiris in the category of new life are him being the god of the Nile and the god of resurrection.89 First, Osiris is seen as the god of the Nile.90 In the Book of the Dead (ch.64) Osiris is recorded as saying, ―‗I flood the land with water…‘‖91 Plutarch conveyed how Osiris is the Nile and the banks are Isis;92 also, Osiris is further associated with all moisture.93 Thus, despite Osiris suffocating in a coffer upon the waters of the Nile, he is taken as the god of the Nile (especially at certain periods in Egypt94); the death of Osiris was, paradoxically, his apotheosis as god of revivification.95 Second, Osiris is held to be the god of resurrection. It is difficult to pinpoint the specifics of the doctrine and its historicity due to dubious and evolving records. E.A.W. Budge explicates: ―Somehow and somewhere the belief arose that this particular god-man Osiris had risen from the dead, as the result of a series of magical ceremonies which were performed by Horus, his son, under the direction of the great magician-priest Thoth and with the help of the embalmer, or medicine-man, Anubis, and it grew and increased until it filled all Egypt.‖96 This status is possible and precipitated because of the belief that Osiris was of divine origin, a god incarnate in the flesh; as a consequence, Osiris‘ death, as told in the legend, only regards his human aspect while the divine and immortal compositional element of Osiris had arisen to return from whence it came.97
88 ―That Osiris was eventually associated with fertility is now unquestioned‖ (Griffiths, The Conflict, 109 [n.6]). Cf. also Budge, Osiris I, 97-98. See further, The Great Hymn to Osiris in Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol.2, 81-86. 89 Actually, being the god of the Nile relates to the productivity of crops, and being the god of resurrection is associated with the afterlife judgment; nevertheless, these former two shall be parsed out from the two latter. See William R. Schoedel, Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 53 (§22.8-9); H.F. Lutz, ―The Ḏd-Emblem of Osiris,‖ JAOS 39 (1919): 196-205. 90 M.A. Murray (―The Cult of the Drowned in Egypt,‖ ZÄS 51 [1913]: 128) distinguishes ―Hapi represents the physical Nile‖ but ―Osiris was looked upon not only as the Nile, but as the source and power of all moisture‖ indeed the ―great god of water.‖ 91 Quoted from Murray, ―The Cult of the Drowned,‖ 128; cf. Adolf Erman, ―Gebete eines ungerecht Verfolgten und andere Ostraka aus den Königsgräbern,‖ ZÄS 38 (1900): 32. 92 Griffiths, De Isis et Osiride, 166/167 (§32), 176/177 (§38). 93 Griffiths, De Isis et Osiride, 168/169 (§33), 172/173 (§36). 94 Griffiths (The Conflict, 17-20, 26-27) charts the ascendancy of Osiris‘ popularity during the time of Pepi I and Pepi II. 95 F.L. Griffiths, ―Herodotus II. 90. Apotheosis by drowning,‖ ZÄS 46 (1909): 132-134. 96 Budge, Osiris, I, 22. Cf. S.G.F. Brandon, ―The Ritual Perpetuation of the Past,‖ Numen 6/2 (1959): 115-120. 97 Budge, Osiris, I, 16-17. Cf. Nicholas Perrin, ―On Raising Osiris in 1 Corinthians 15,‖ TB 58/1 (2007): 117-128. 305
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Moses, in Ex 2*, though differing in many ways from the Osiris legend, does resemble Osiris in several ways. Moses, like Osiris, floats on the Nile waters confined in a box; Moses re-emerges from the death-waters to be a judge of the people (Ex 18.13), as does Osiris; Moses is like a god unto Aaron (Ex 4.16) and like unto Pharaoh a god (Ex 7.1), as Osiris is god incarnate; Moses and Osiris are, though a generic description, notably acclaimed as ―good(ly);‖98 Moses and Osiris are memorialized as those emerging from the coffer, the former by means of a recorded legend (Ex 2.1-10) and the latter by means of ritual: ―On the nineteenth [of the month Athyr] at night they go down to the sea; and the keepers and priests carry out the sacred chest, having within it a small golden vessel, into which they take and pour fresh water, and shouts are raised with the assistants as though Osiris were found.‖99 All the above parallels between Ex 2* and the Osiris legend(s) provokes the interpretation of Moses experiencing a typological death and resurrection. The Nile (Nun), while fashioned in Moses‘ case for death, is actually reversed for life—as is the Nile‘s typical association: the death of Osiris, yet, through Osiris, the life of agriculture. As a consequence,
Moses who is lain in a coffin (hbt) upon death-waters does not in fact die but instead is drawn out to (new) life—resurrection, typologically speaking. Therefore, in light of the Egyptian milieu, its physical setting, and concurrent religious activities, Moses‘ events as an exposed infant in a hbt is portentous of resurrection.
2.3.3.3 Resurrection Overtones in the Hebrew Bible vis-à-vis hbt? Previously, the purported doctrine of resurrection deriving from the opening line of the Song(s) at the Sea was discussed and retorted. There are, though, additional Pentateuchal texts which are said to be seedbeds from which the doctrine of resurrection stems.100 Both ancient Jewish in the Talmud and the New Testament alike search for resurrection in the Pentateuch, because, as the rabbis teach, all doctrine is legitimate if and only if it can be traced back to and found to source from the Torah.101 In the New Testament, a primary distinction between the Pharisees and Sadducees is resurrection: ―the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all‖ (Acts 23.8). During Jesus‘ last week, when the religious
98 For Moses as good see Ex 2.2; and, ―the by-name of Osiris, wnn nfrw, i.e. ‗the one who is good,‘ or ‗the good Being,‘ Coptic oueno3re‖ (Lutz, ―The Ḏd-Emblem of Osiris,‖ 197). 99 Murray, ―The Cult of the Drowned,‖ 128. 100 Another major Talmudic proposition for resurrection stemming from the Torah includes Deut 32.39 (‗See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.‘) (A. Cohen, Everyman‟s Talmud, 359; Levenson, Resurrection, 171-172) 101 This is at least the inference of the Talmudic exegetes when they say that if resurrection cannot be found in the Torah, then that person is anathema; see again 2.3.3.1 above. 306
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
leaders where trying to trap Jesus in speaking against the scriptures in order to arrest and execute him, the Sadducees advanced their ploy with a scenario about resurrection (see Mt 22.23-33 / Mk 12.18-27 / Lk 20.27-40). After debunking the premise of the rhetorical trap based on faulty knowledge of Torah, Jesus then asserts, ―as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‗I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob‘? He is not God of the dead, but of the living;‖ (Mk 12.26-27a; cf. Mt 22.31-32 / Lk 20.37-38). This is the only advancement in the New Testament for resurrection based on the interpretation from the Hebrew Scriptures, otherwise all other resurrection discussion in the New Testament centres on Jesus‘ own and the general resurrection at the end of the age.102 What is intriguing about Jesus‘ interpretation is that resurrection, in the Torah/ Pentateuch, is argued on the basis of verbal tense—just like the Song(s) in the Talmud.103 That verbs in this declaration are in the present tense apparently indicates that God is a god of resurrection; indeed, the name YHWH is a paronomasia of the verb hyh, to be. Thus, since YHWH is an ever-present, living God, YHWH is a God of resurrection, according to Jesus, even though the Patriarchs are deceased. Forthrightly, Jesus‘ exegesis is more tenuous than Peter‘s and Paul‘s (see above); albeit, Peter and Paul could make their scriptural interpretation of typological resurrection only after Jesus‘ own (literal) resurrection. To summarize the foregoing, resurrection cannot securely be identified in any Pentateuchal text. The closest texts advanced which purportedly speak of resurrection instead convey the concept of the sustenance or extenuation of life over against death (e.g., Deut 32.39). Correspondingly, there is only a short list of biblical texts which connote resurrection in a typological manner at best (e.g., Ex 14-15*). In light of such little evidence of resurrection overtones in the Torah, it strikes us as fascinating that the occupants of hbt experience a more palpable type of resurrection, though, of course, not an actual resurrection, than any of the above scriptural citations. Noah et al. are ―[b]rought safely through the ordeal…by their resurrection-emergence from the waters of death…‖104 And ―like Noah‘s ark, Moses passes though the threatening waters and survives‖;105 thus, he too experiences a resurrection-emergence from death-waters (and later
102 An exception is Heb 11.35a which attests, ―Women [in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament] received their dead by resurrection‖ by faith. 103 See Kevin J. Madigan and Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008), 213-214. 104 Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 217. Cf. ibid, 208. 105 Smith, Exodus (The New Collegeville Bible Commentary, 3; Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2011), 20. 307
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
the Israelites do as well, not by means of a , but still just as lucid as the narratives). Consequently, hbt saliently evokes resurrection overtones, especially since its plain meaning is coffin and it is the hinge craft between life and death; actually, hbt is a life preserving, life extenuating vessel. 2.4 Theological Aspects of
We can now summarize a few theological aspects of hbt, having examined them thoroughly heretofore, and advance another. It cannot be underscored enough that is not the usual term for either of the vessels in the Hebrew Bible—especially the Genesis passage. S.E. Holloway sounds a much needed warning when it comes to interpretation. The ancients were not incompetent fools; if they had wished to compose a literalistic account of a big, big boat that saved all the animals from drowning in a flood, they would have elected to describe virtually any seaworthy vessel of large draft moored at the nearest harbor, rather than either of the nautical monstrosities that appear in their respective religious texts [i.e. GE and Gen].106
As a consequence, what can be definitively deducted about the meaning of hbt and its associated theological implications? hbt spawns a few theological-conceptual results; these are (1) as cultic structure, (2) as contra-coffin, and (3) as womb. 2.4.1 as Cultic Structure
This point has been developed thoroughly by now. Suffice it here to say that Noah‘s hbt resembles the Solomonic Temple; and Moses‘ hbt has the appearance of the Ark of the Covenant, the chief article of the same Temple (and the Tabernacle prior). These cultic structures, of which the imitates, house the most sacred items of the Israelites; in regards to the ark of the covenant it occupies the Ten Commandments, or the Covenant contract, and concerning the Temple it contains, in addition to other sacred objects and the worship and intercession which priests performed, the very presence and glory of YHWH/ God. 2.4.2 as Contra-Coffin The biblical s can also be seen as contra-coffins, that is, having the opposite function of a coffin (ḏbȝ.t). Indeed, in both the Flood and the Foundling narratives, those who are inside the ―coffin‖ are alive whilst those outside are dead and dying. In Genesis 6-9* all other humans and animals without the hbt perish while those within survive; and in Exodus 2* the text implies that all other Hebrew male babies drowned (Ex 1.22) whereas Moses remains
106 Holloway, ―What Ship Goes There,‖ 352. 308
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
alive in the hbt. Thus those survivors experience an extension of life—remain alive— 107 because of the hbt which serves an antithetical purpose. hbt, therefore, is used in a polemic and/or ironic way in Genesis and Exodus to mean contra-coffin. 2.4.3 as Womb
Similar to contra-coffin hbt further symbolizes a womb; though this theological concept was intimated in ch.3 (1.2.4.3) it shall be drawn out presently. O. Rank elucidates that in typical foundling stories ―[t]he children come out of the water. The basket, box, or receptacle simply means the container, the womb; so that the exposure directly signifies the process of birth, although it is represented by its opposite.‖108 This pictorial connection is best seen, naturally, when a child is the occupant of the chest (e.g., Moses, Sargon); although, the chest as womb conception may still be maintained when the occupier is grown, as for example in Egyptian theology. In the cultic re-enactment of the revivification of Osiris various figurines of said god were enclosed in sycamore wood; corn-mummies too were laid on sycamore branches for seven days signifying the seven months Osiris was thought to be in his mother‘s womb— hence, Osiris was reborn of Nut, ―for the sycamore of the underworld was the tree of Nut, heavenly mother though she might be.‖109 Thus ―the mummy-cases or coffins of sycamore wood were themselves the vehicles of rebirth…‖110 N.M. Holley consequently resolves: ―For Osiris the equation, chest = coffin = tree = mother‘s womb and means of rebirth, seems virtually certain, and the throwing into water, everywhere a rite of regeneration, was particularly appropriate to a god whose renewed life would be seen springing from the earth as the flood receded.‖111 So, is a womb connotative interpretation tenable for the biblical ? In Exodus 2.1- 10 the can be seen as Jochebed‘s pregnant womb which is transferred to be the Egyptian princesses‘ womb pregnant with child; and when the boy is drawn out of the , or the womb Moses is thusly (re)birthed! The Genesis may also represent a womb, which is pregnant with a new humanity (and a new animal kingdom). In fact, it is only the
107 Cf. Ruth Clements, ―A Shelter amid the Flood: Noah‘s Ark in Early Jewish and Christian Art‖ in Noah and His Book(s) (SBLEJIL, 28; eds. M.E. Stone, A. Amihay, and V. Hillel; Atlanta, Ga.: SBL, 2010), 277-299. 108 Rank, Myth of the Birth of the Hero, 73-74. Cf. Propp, Exodus 1-18, 157-158. 109 N.M. Holley, ―The Floating Chest,‖ The Journal of Hellenic Studies 69 (1949): 44. Note: the chest of Osiris in De Iside et Osiride is made of an unspecified wood, and the tree which engulfs the coffer is Erica. 110 Holley, ―The Floating Chest,‖ 44. Loewe (―Ark, Archaisms and Misappropriations,‖ 116-117 [n.17]) has illuminated that in many Semitic languages the chest is named after the wood from which tree it was constructed. 111 Holley, ―The Floating Chest,‖ 44. 309
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Genesis which is made of wood (rpk), wood being the linchpin in this (womb) interpretive schema.112 R. Zuurmond interprets, with the Genesis and Exodus s,―[b]eide zijn tegelijk een moederschoot waaruit het leven opnieuw wordt geboren …zowel de associatie aan doodkist als de dieptepsychologishe associatie aan de moederschoot terecht zijn.‖113
These three images all convey one point: that hbt is a life preserving receptacle. For the hbt to be the opposite of a funerary coffer, it is a life preserving receptacle—a contra-coffin. The hbt abstractly depicted as a womb conveys the incubation of life and the continuation of it in life threatening situations. hbt as a cultic structure is a picture of life preservation for it offers sanctuary, generally speaking, i.e. a place of refuge, protection;114 indeed, within the parameters of the Temple and ark of the covenant is religiously embodied holistically fulfilled life. Therefore, the hbt of Noah in Gen 6-9* and of Moses in Ex 2* is a terminus technicus for a life-preserving receptacle.
112 Cf. Holley, ―The Floating Chest,‖ 44: ―The particular complex of rites…in which the mother- goddess is represented in tree form and the young god is found in a cradle of rushes, a wooden boat or a chest floating on water, has been traced to Egypt and Sumeria in the 3rd millennium B.C. and possibly earlier. It probably originated in a region in which coniferous trees were indigenous, possibly in North Syria, possibly farther east.‖ 113 Zuurmond, ―Het bijbelse verhaal,‖ 2511. 114 Cf. Levenson, Resurrection, 82-107. 310
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
This dissertation has addressed and explored the conundrum. Why has it been borrowed by the Hebrew writers; from whence has it been loaned? Why has it been penned in the Flood Narrative (Gen 6-9*) and the Foundling Story (Ex 2*), and nowhere else? Was this placement/utilization an intentional measure by a redactor; if so, what is its religio- theological portents in particular? These queries and more have been set forth in order to discover why the aforementioned texts are effectively linked together with this foreign and rarified word that has become a terminus technicus. Despite various disparities, the Flood Narrative and the Foundling Story do agree on the following structural elements. In both biblical texts many individuals experience death by waters, specifically drowning; in Genesis this is the state of all mankind (and faunae), as per the judgment of YHWH/God, whereupon the Deluge commences, and in Exodus this is the fate of all Hebrew male newborns who are thrown into the Nile that they are drowned, as per the edict of Pharaoh (Ex 1.22). In both Gen 6-9* and Ex 2* the only exceptions to the aforesaid aquatic destruction are those who are sheltered in the hbt; in the prior case it is Noah and family (and faunae), and in the subsequent instance the preserved one is Moses. Thence, in each legend those who survive the watery cataclysm are saved/rescued unto new life; with Noah et al. a (re)new(ed) world emerges free of evil and corruption (for a brief time), and with Moses he enters a new life of royalty, as opposed to slavery…and eventually he will lead forth the Israelites into a new life of liberation, over against slavery. Additionally, in each narrative trajectory, Gen 6-9* and Ex 1-19ff., the one saved by means of are the human representatives of a covenant entered with YHWH/God; Noah is essentially the covenant partner with Elohim, even though it is a unilateral covenant Noah and sons (family) are addressed as figureheads of humanity, and Moses as the figurehead of the Israelites entered into the contractual or bilateral Sinaitic covenant with YHWH/God.
The above schema—especially the centrepiece regarding the survivors via hbt—is especially poignant, since the word derives from the Egyptian ḏbȝ.t; ḏbȝ.t means both coffer or coffin and god(dess)-shrine. The irony between the original meaning of in its native language (coffin) and the meaning in its appropriated biblical texts (life preserving
311
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
receptacle) is provocative—it has the polar opposite nature in meaning between the biblical texts and the Egyptian contexts. Nonetheless, the secondary meaning of ḏbȝ.t (Götterschrein), i.e. shrine, is also fully engaged in Genesis and Exodus. Both biblical s resemble the Tabernacle; Genesis‘s is divinely blueprinted just as the Tabernacle is, and Exodus‘s contains Moses, the same personage to whom is disclosed the Divine specifications of the Ark of the Covenant. Noah‘s , further, is analogous to the Solomonic Temple; and Moses‘ is congruent with the Ark of the Covenant, which occupies the Tabernacle as well as the Temple as the most sacred object of each sanctuary. Moses‘ is akin to the Ark of the Covenant insofar as it contains the Torah (or the Ten Commandments), i.e., Truth; similarly, the Götterschrein of the Egyptian Opet festival contained the god and goddess Amon and Mut—much like Osiris was enclosed in a coffer with his winged sisters Isis and Nephthys at terminal ends—just as the Ark of the Covenant had winged cherubim at both ends the chest, with wings touching at the centre. The Genesis , again, is like unto the Solomonic temple in part because the Babylonian ark, which is analogous to the biblical ark, is once called a temple/palace (ekallu), i.e. a ziggurat; the Akkadian ziggurat was the temple, and Noah‘s offers the first (clean) animal sacrifice in the Bible, it is a soothing aroma to the Deity which transpires near the (≈ temple), all of which is germane to the Gilgamesh Epic. With such thoroughgoing theological appropriations, the Biblical writer(s)/ editor(s) must have been intentional, strategic, and even theologically motivated regarding the utilizing both definitions of the term ḏbȝ.t. The Biblical writer of Gen 6-9* is P and the editor/redactor is nP; and the compositor in Ex 2* is non-P. On the one hand, P, the authorial source of priority, employed in Gen 6-9* sixteen of the twenty six occurrences; and, on the other hand, is utilized ten times by nP in Gen 6-9* and twice (of two times) in Ex 2*. Since nP is the redactor and the late compositing strand, then it stands to reason that nP converted 1 the P terminology for the Genesis ark (likely Nwr)) to hbt. Thus, non-P is the theologian responsible for the ironic, polemic, and even mnemohistoric utilization of an Egyptian term— hence converted into a terminus technicus for the polar opposite: a life preservation receptacle.
1 Consequently, as argued in ch.3, this serves as a link to the so-called separate identity/story of the story of Israel, as proposed by Konrad Schmid in Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments (WMANT, 81; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999) / Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible (trans. James Nogalski; Siphrut, 3; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010). 312
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
The linguistic Hebrew tradition stands in contrast with the Greek translation (LXX) of Genesis and Exodus. In the Flood account the vessel in question is universally translated kibwto/j, while the vessel in the Foundling account is called qi=bij. In addition, a curious coffer in Gen 50.26 which hold the bones of Joseph is in Greek soro/j—a coffin. The Greek translation motivation in each case is literalness, even at the expense of the link that the biblical redactor(s) achieved with the hbt nexus: the vessel in question is a bier not a chest; a basket not a coffin/Götterschrein, a giant chest not a coffin/Götterschrein. Joseph, that figure who bridges Genesis and Exodus, entreats his kinsfolk to take his bones—encased in an actual coffin—to the Promise Land when God would eventually deliver the Israelites thence (Gen 50.24-25; Ex 13.19; Josh 24.32)—and the Reed Sea was en route in the deliverance journey. The Song(s) at the Sea were critically evaluated and seen to be interconnected with the larger cosmological constellation of Levantine worldview, which also brings into sharper focus the main thrust for the utilization of in the two biblical texts. The most important connection between the Song(s), in their Sitz in der Literatur as the broader exodus story (Ex 1-15*), and the texts is the Divine rescue of a people from or through deep death- waters; in particular, the larger Song twice refers to Mwht (vv.5, 8 [P]) even as P pens Mwht in pair in the Flood Narrative (Gen 7.11, 8.3). Mwht is equivalent to Tiamat, the watery beast who is destroyed asunder by Marduk; and similar to Baal‘s destruction of Yamm and Nahar. In these pieces of literature as well as Ex 1-15* what the defeat of the watery foe means for the victor is temple construction atop a mountain whereupon to exercise sovereign kingship.
The Egyptian equivalent to Mwht, furthermore, is Nun, the primal water mass from which all life emerged (cf. Gen 1.2). Thus, in both texts (Gen 6-9* and Ex 2*), as well as the Song(s) at the Sea, those sheltered by the contra-coffin emerge from an indisputable aquatic onslaught out of abysmal waters typifying new life, a preserved and sustained existence. Depicting new life was important to the biblical writers/compositors because of the post-exilic era which was beginning to dawn; so, from this timeframe the above mentioned texts were crafted and redacted to attest God‘s liberation of God‘s people. It has been argued that the Deutero-Isaianic prophecy of Isa 54, with Noah as an illustration in vv.9-10, served as the impetus for the Priestly writer to transcribe the oral tradition of the Flood and also of the unilateral covenant—to never again cut off all flesh/the earth, by means of flood, for any reason (sin, evil, etc.)—which was being experienced in vividness at the close of the exilic period. Deutero-Isaiah also articulated the liberation from exile in language greatly
313
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
reminiscent of the exodus, particularly the Sea crossing, in Isa 51.9-10; this prophecy, it has been argued, led the non-Priestly compositor/redactor to edit the Song of Moses (Ex 15.1b- 18) into the exodus framework, which was largely crafted by nP. So there are deep water deliverances at each polarity of the (broader) exodus textual block of Ex 1-15*—non-P being responsible also for the Foundling story of Ex 2*. Consequently, in all three Pentateuchal texts under exegetical examination, the liberation from exile is retrospectively and retroactively written into the history of God‘s people because of its monumental import—just as the Israelites are liberated from the tyranny of enslavement in Egypt, and the forefather of the Hebrews (along with Noah‘s family) is liberated from a corrupt and evil riddled earth. With the prophet prophesying and P and nP writing and compositing/redacting around the end of the Babylonian/Persian exile, retrofitting their history (mimetically) under the reality of revivification, the theological concept of new life, new creation, and new era could not be adequately underscored. New life and new creation can be seen from the foregoing schematic where those who are sheltered in , the contra-coffin, emerge from it preserved and alive when all else are dead;2 also, either the world around those resurging from a deep water deliverance is regenerated (Gen 6-9*) or the resurgent ones themselves are symbolically rebirthed because of their deep water deliverance (Ex 15*). Another angle on the subject of renewed and revivified existence is the notion of a new era; this is a common component to our three Pentateuchal texts as well. The signalling of a new era is evident in the Flood Narrative whereupon the floodwaters have abated greatly, the vessel has grounded upon Mt. Ararat, and the day on which Noah opens the roof and gazes around is the first day of the first month of the following year from the time of the flood‘s advent, that is, New Year‘s Day (Gen 8.13a).3 New Year‘s Day features in the Gilgamesh Epic also, and refers to the Akkadian–Babylonian akîtu festival. In this annual observance of Marduk‘s (re)enthronement accompanied by Enuma Elish as liturgy, the renewal of creation was celebration at the commencement of the spring season (New Year‘s). In the Flood story of Genesis the reference to New Year‘s Day signalled the dawn of a new era, whereby YHWH/God‘s act of (re)creation from the abysmal watery mass (Mwht) was occasioned just as it had been at the beginning (though the creation poem of Gen 1 likely did not, as some have maintained, function as a liturgical piece of
2 In the case of the Flood, ―all‖ meaning literally every entity outside of the ark; in the Foundling story and context, ―all‖ means (presumably because of Ex 1.22) every other Hebrew male infant. 3 Again, this is especially significant because this time reference is neither the only nor the last of its kind; rather, it does not fit the dating schematic and is therefore foregrounded datum. 314
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
literature as did Enuma Elish in Babylon): the waters are separated, land emerges, and the proliferation of living creatures is exhorted all at God‘s command. In the exodus complex of Ex 1-15* a new era for Moses and the Israelites is heralded in that the exodus event marked the New Year for Israel. The Passover, celebrated in the spring, was the catalyst of the exodus proper and was culminated at the Sea crossing, which was YHWH‘s destruction of the enemy in the same gesture. The so-called Song(s) at the Sea, formerly a free-floating, independent poem, were most probably used as liturgy during the Passover festival; for, eventually, both the shorter and longer Songs were incorporated by P and nP respectively into the exodus textual complex (Ex 1-15*). This deep water deliverance mirrors, of course, the Flood and even the Creation poem. Concerning the compositional timeframe of Ex 2* more specifically, the concept of a new era which interfaces with the Levantine political milieu comes into focus. It has been argued that the catalyst of nP‘s composition of Ex 2* was the fall of the Egyptian kingdom to the advancing Persian Empire, Cyrus having overthrown the Babylonian empire and expanded its borders through conquest. In a spirit of mimetic history the Foundling story was crafted which also displays the defiance against (in the most innocent and impotent figure, a babe) and eventual overthrow of the Egyptians by the Israelites—or, rather, by the God of the Israelites. Thus, not only were the people of Hebrew descent vilified in the overthrow of Egypt, but they also saw a savior figure in Cyrus (Isa 44.28; 45.1) much to the tenor of what Moses had been for them. Moreover, Cyrus liberated the Jewish remnant in the first year of his reign (2 Chron 36.22-23; Ezra 1.1-2); consequently, for all intents and purposes this was essentially a New Year‘s demarcation—YHWH/God had ultimately again resuscitated, renewed, and restored YHWH/God‘s people!
In conclusion, hbt has been appropriated (by non-P) in an ironic and polemic fashion to poignantly communicate through salient scriptural texts that despite recurrent near-death experiences faced by the persons or people of YHWH/God, YHWH/God remains faithful to sustain and preserve life, to redeem and revivify lives. Therefore, hbt is a terminus technicus in the Hebrew Bible for the quintessential life-preserving receptacle.
315
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
APPENDIX A
TRANSLATION OF GENESIS 6.5–9.17
6.5Now YHWH had seen that the evil of humanity was rampant on the earth and
316
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
―Enter the , you and your household, because you I have found righteous among this generation. 7.2From all the clean beasts you shall take for yourself seven of each, male and female, and from the beast that are not clean two, male and female, 7.3also from the fowl of the skies seven of each, male and female, to keep alive offspring upon the face of the whole earth; 7.4because, in seven days I bring rain upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights with the result that I will wipe out all existence which I have made from upon the face of the ground.‖ 7.5Noah did it; all that was commanded him by YHWH. 7.6Now Noah was 600 years old when the flood came upon the earth. Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons‘ wives with him entered the away from the floodwaters. 7.8From the clean beasts and beasts which were not clean and from the fowl and all which creeps upon the ground, 7.9two by two they came to Noah to enter the , male and female, just as YHWH commanded Noah. 7.10When it was seven days then the floodwaters came upon the earth. 7.11In the 600th year of Noah‘s life, on the second month on the 17th day of the month— on this very day—every spring of the abyss broke wide open and the lattice of heaven opened. 7.12And rain came upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights. 7.13On this same day Noah and Shem, Ham, and Japheth Noah‘s son, as well as Noah‘s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them entered the . 7.14These and every living thing according to its species, that is1 all beasts according to its species, all creeping creepers upon the land according to its species, and all fowl according to its species (every winged bird). 7.15They came to Noah to enter the , two by two, some of each flesh which had in it the breath of life; 7.16those that entered, male and female from all flesh, went in just as God commanded him. Then YHWH closed the door. 7.17So the flood came upon the earth 40 days; the waters increased so that it2 lifted the raising it off the land. 7.18The waters prevailed and it increased greatly upon the land with the result that the floated upon the surface of the waters. 7.19The waters prevailed extremely upon the land so that it covered every high mountain which was under heaven. 7.2015 cubits higher did the waters prevail; thus it covered the mountains. 7.21And all flesh perished: the creepers on the land, the fowl, the beasts—all life—even the swarming swarmers upon the land, and all humanity too. 7.22All who had the breath of life in its nostrils of all who were on dry ground died. 7.23He wiped out all existence that was on the face of the ground, from humanity to beasts to creepers, to fowl of the skies were wiped out from the land; only Noah
1 The conjunctive waw (-w:) here is taken as a waw explicativum, i.e., specifying the general (cf. 8.1). 2 Mym ―(the) waters‖ will be considered a collective singular in translation. 317
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
remained and those with him in the . 7.24So the waters prevailed upon the earth 150 days. 8.1But God remembered Noah and every living thing, that is every animal, which was with him in the ; and God caused a wind to pass over the earth so that the waters abated. 8.2The springs of the abyss and the lattices of heaven were stopped up, and the rain was restrained from the heavens. 8.3So, waters receded from the earth, receding steadily; the waters diminished at the end of 150 days. 8.4Then the rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month, on the 17th day of the month. 8.5The waters were diminishing steadily until the tenth month; in the tenth month on the first day of the month the mountaintops became visible. 8.6When it was the end of 40 days, Noah opened the window of the which he had made. 8.7He sent out the raven and it flew this way and that until the waters dried from upon the land. 8.8Next, he sent out the dove from him to see whether the waters had subsided from upon the face of the ground. 8.9But the dove did not find a resting place for the palm of its feet, so it returned to him to the because water was upon the face of the land; so, he stretched out his hand and took it and brought it to him into the . 8.10He waited another seven days and then he again sent the dove from the . 8.11The dove returned to him at evening, and there was a fresh olive branch in its bill; then Noah knew that the waters had subsided from upon the land. 8.12He waited another seven days and then he sent out the dove, but it did not again return to him. 8.13It was the 601st year, the first of the first month, when the waters dried from the face of the land. Then Noah removed the covering of the ; he looked and saw that the ground was dry. 8.14In the second month, in the 27th day of the month, the earth was completely dry. 8.15Then God spoke to Noah (saying), 8.16―Go out from the , you and your wife, and your sons, and your sons‘ wives with you; 8.17all the living things which are with you: from all flesh, the fowl, the beasts, all the creepers creeping upon the land shall go out with you for the purpose that they teem on the earth, and be fruitful and increase upon the earth.‖ 8.18So Noah went out and his sons and his wife and his sons‘ wives with him. 8.19All living things: every beast, fowl, and creeper upon the land according to their clans they went out from the . 8.20Then Noah built an altar to YHWH, and he took some of every clean beast and every clean bird and offered a burnt offering on the altar. 8.21When YHWH smelled the tranquillising aroma, YHWH said to himself, ‗Never again will I curse the ground on account of humanity because the imagination of mankind‘s heart is evil from his youth; and never again will I 318
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
strike all life as I have done. 8.22While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and autumn, day and night will never cease.‘ 9.1Then God blessed Noah and his sons saying to them, ―Be fruitful and increase, and fill the earth. 9.2Fear and terror of you will be upon all living things of the earth, upon all fowl of the skies, all who creep on the ground, and all fish of the sea; into your hand they are given. 9.3Every moving thing which is living will be for you food; as I gave you green herbage so to you is everything. 9.4Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, its blood. 9.5Surely I will seek your blood, your life; from any living thing I will seek it, and from mankind, from a man his brother I will seek the life of mankind. 9.6The one pouring blood of man, by man will his blood be poured; for, in the image of God He made mankind. 9.7So as for you, be fruitful and increase, teem on the earth and increase in it.‖ 9.8Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him (saying), 9.9―I myself am establishing my covenant with you and with your offspring after you, 9.10also all living beings that were with you: the fowl, the beasts, and all the living things of the land with you—all those who came out of the . 9.11Thus I establish my covenant with you: never again will I cut off all flesh by means of a flood, nor will there again be a flood to destroy the earth.‖ 9.12And God said, ―This is the sign of the covenant which I am giving between me and you and every living being with you for generations eternally: 9.13my bow I give you in the clouds and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 9.14So when I bring clouds over the earth I will see the bow in the clouds; then I will remember my covenant which is between me and you and every living being among all flesh: 9.15that never again will be floodwaters to destroy all flesh. 9.16When the bow is in the clouds then I look at it to remember the eternal covenant between God and every living being among all flesh which is upon the earth.‖ 9.17Then God said to Noah, ―This is the sign of the covenant which I have established between me and all flesh which is upon the earth.‖
319
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
APPENDIX B
TRANSLATION OF EXODUS 2.1-10
2.1Now a man from the house of Levi went and took a daughter of Levi. 2.2The woman conceived and gave birth to a son; she saw that he was goodly, so she hid him for three months. 2.3When she was not able to still hide him then she took for him a papyrus and covered it with bitumen and pitch. She placed the child in it and placed
1 Lit. ―called his name.‖ 2 Lit. ―said.‖ Cf. Sarna, Exodus (The JPS Torah Commentary; Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 10. 3 yk is taken here as recitative, i.e., ―introducing direct speech‖ (Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline [2nd ed.; Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1976], §452). 320
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
APPENDIX C
TRANSLATION OF EXODUS 15.1-21
15.1Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to YHWH; they sang1 saying: Let me sing to YHWH, for he is highly exalted; horse and its charioteer he has cast into the sea. 15.2Ya is my strength and my song; he has become for me salvation. This is my God and I will praise him; my father‘s God(s) and I will exalt him. 15.3YHWH is a man of war; YHWH is his name. 15.4Pharaoh‘s chariots and army have been thrown into the sea; and the best of his officers are sunk in the Reed Sea. 15.5The abyss covered them; they went down into the depths as a stone. 15.6Your right hand, YHWH, is great in strength; your right hand, YHWH, shatters hostiles. 15.7And in your great exaltation you throw down those who rise up against you; You send out your anger, it consumes them as chaff. 15.8And at the breath of your nostrils the waters heaped up—flowing
1 Lit. ―said.‖ 321
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
15.16Terror and dread will fall upon them; by the greatness of your arm they will be stilled as a stone—until your people pass through, YHWH, until this people you have purchased have passed through. 15.17You will bring them in and you will plant them at the mountain of your possession, your fixed dwelling which you have made—the sanctuary the Lord your hands have established. 15.18YHWH will reign forever and ever. 15.19When the horses of Pharaoh with his charioteers and his horsemen went into the sea, YHWH returned upon them the waters of the sea; but the Israelites walked on dry ground in the midst of the sea. 15.20Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron‘s sister, took the tambourine in her hand; and all the women came out after her with tambourines and with dancing. 15.21Miriam sang to them: Sing to YHWH for he is highly exalted; horse and its charioteer he has cast into the sea!
322
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
APPENDIX D
MYTHOLOGICAL SEMANTIC CONSTELLATION
, Waters, Sea
Gen 1.2; 7.11; 8.2; Ex 15.5; Ps 42.7; 104.6; 106.9; 135.6; Isa 63.13; Ezek 26.19; 31.4, 15; Amos 7.4; Jon 2.5; Hab 3.10
Ps 74.13-15; 148.7 Ps 89.10-11
Isa 51.9-10
Ps 74.12-14; 104.26 Isa 27.1 Isa 30.6-7 Ps 87.4 Ezek 29.3; 32.2
Monster/Dragon/Serpent Rahab
323
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
APPENDIX E
WATERY SEMANTIC CONSTELLATION
Gen 1.2; 7.11; 8.2; Ex 15.5; Ps 42.7; 104.6; 106.9; 135.6; 148.7; Isa 63.13; Ezek 26.19; 31.4, 15; Jon 2.5
Ex 15.8; Ps 33.7 Ps 77.16-19; 78.13 Isa 51.10; Hab 3.9b-16
Ex 15.10, 19 Ex 7.19; 8.5 Ps 74.13 Isa 19.5-6 Ps 78.44 Isa 43.16; 50.2 Isa 11.15; 66.12 Ezek 32.2
Seas & Waters Rivers & Streams
324
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abela, Anthony, ―Is Genesis the Introduction of the Primary History?‖ Pages 397-406 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Ackerman, James S., ―The Literary Context of the Moses Birth Story (Exodus 1-2).‖ Pages 74-119 in Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives. Edited by Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis, et al.Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1974. Ackerman, Susan, ―Why is Miriam Also among the Prophets? (And is Zipporah among the Priests?),‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 121/1 (2002): 47-80. Aitken, James K., ―The Significance of Rhetoric in the Greek Pentateuch.‖ Pages 507-521 in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of Graham Ivor Davies. Edited by James K. Aitken, Katharine J. Dell and Brian A. Mastin. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 420. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2011. Albertz, Rainer, A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period, vol 1: From the Beginnings to the End of the Monarchy. Translated by John Bowden. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. ______, ―Darius in Place of Cyrus: The First Edition of Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40.1-52.12) in 521 BCE,‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27/3 (2003): 371-383. ______, ―The Late Exilic Book of Exodus (Exodus 1-34*): A Contribution to the Pentateuchal Discussion.‖ Pages 243-256 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Albright, William F., ―The Psalm of Habakkuk.‖ Pages 1-18 in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Edited by H.H. Rowley. New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1950. ______, ―Northwest-Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.‖ Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954): 222-233. Aling, Charles F., ―The Biblical City of Ramses.‖ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25/2 (1982): 129-137. Alter, Robert, The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981. ______, The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007. Amit, Yairah, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Translated by Yael Lotan. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2001. Anbar, Moshé, ―La ‗Reprise‘.‖ Vetus Testamentum 38/4 (1988): 385-398. Anderson, Bernhard W., ―Exodus Typology in Second Isaiah.‖ Pages 177-195 in Israel‟s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Edited by B. Anderson and W. Harrelson. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962. ______, Creation versus Chaos: The Reinterpretation of Mythical Symbolism in the Bible. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1967. ______, Understanding the Old Testament. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1975. ______, ―From Analysis To Synthesis: The Interpretation Of Genesis 1-11.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 97/1 (1978): 23-39. ______, ―The Song of Miriam Poetically and Theologically Considered.‖ Pages 285-296 in Direction of Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. ______, From Creation to New Creation: Old Testament Perspectives. Overtures to Biblical Theology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994. ______(with Steven Bishop), Contours of Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1999. Anderson, Francis I., Habakkuk. Anchor Bible, 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Anderson, T. David, ―Genealogical Prominence and the Structure of Genesis.‖ Pages 242-266 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Andrason, Alexander, ―The Panchronic Yiqtol: Functionally Consistent and Cognitively Plausible.‖ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures10/10 (2010): 2-63. ______, ―Biblical Hebrew Wayyiqtol: A Dynamic Definition.‖ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 11/8 (2011): 2-58. Armstrong, James Franklin, ―A Critical Note on Genesis VI 16aα.‖ Vetus Testamentum 10/3 (1960): 328-333. Arnold, Bill T., Genesis. The New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Assmann, Jan, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997.
325
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Attridge, Harold, et al., Qumran Cave 4 VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1. Discoveries in the Judean Desert, XIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Atwell, James E., ―An Egyptian Source for Genesis I.‖ Journal of Theological Studies 51/2 (2000): 441-477. Auerbach, Elias, Moses. Translated by Robert A. Barclay and Israel O. Lehman. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1975. Bach, Alice, ―With a Song in her Heart: Listening to Scholars Listening for Miriam.‖ Pages 243-254 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy; The Feminist Companion to the Bible, vol.6. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Bachmann, Mercedes García, ―¿Qué hacían mientras tanto las mujeres hebreas (Exodo 1-2)?‖ Cuaderno de Teología 18 (1999): 7-19. Baden, Joel S., ―The wəyiqtol and the Volative Sequence.‖ Vetus Testamentum 58/2 (2008): 147-158. ______, J,E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. ______, ―Identifying the Original Stratum of P: Theoretical and Practical Considerations.‖ Pages 13-29 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. ______, ―From Joseph to Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1-2.‖ Vetus Testamentum 62/2 (2012): 133-158. ______, ―The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus.‖ Biblica 93/2 (2012): 161-186. Bailey, Lloyd R., ―Wood from ‗Mount Ararat‘: Noah‘s Ark?‖ Biblical Archaeologist 40/4 (1977): 137-146. ______, Noah: The Person and the Story in History and Tradition. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina Press, 1989. Bailey, Nicholas Andrew, ―Some Literary and Grammatical Aspects of Genealogies in Genesis.‖ Pages 267-284 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Balenstine, Samuel E., ―A Description of the Semantic Field of Hebrew Words for ‗Hide‘.‖ Vetus Testamentum 30/2 (1980): 137-153. Baltzer, Klaus, Deutero-Isaiah: A Commentary on Isaiah 40-55. Translated by Margaret Kohl. Hermeneia. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2001 Bandstra, Barry, Genesis 1-11: A Handbook on the Hebrew Text. Baylor, Tex.: Baylor University Press, 2008. Bar-Efrat, Shimon, ―Some Observations on the Analysis of Structure in Biblical Narrative.‖ Vetus Testamentum 30/2 (1980): 154-173. ______, Narrative Art in the Bible. Translated by Dorothea Shefer-Vanson with Shimon Bar-Efrat. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 70. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989. Barr, James, ―The Meaning of ‗Mythology‘ in Relation to the Old Testament.‖ Vetus Testamentum 9/1 (1959): 1-10. Barré, Lloyd M., ―The Riddle of the Flood Chronology.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 41/1(1988): 3-20. Barré, Michael L., ―Yahweh Gears Up for Battle: Habakkuk 3,9a.‖ Biblica 87/1 (2006): 75-84. Batto, Bernard F., ―The Reed Sea: Requiescat In Pace.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 102/1 (1983): 27-35. ______, ―The Covenant of Peace: a Neglected Ancient Near Eastern Motif.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49/2 (1987): 187-211. ______, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1992. Bauks, Michaela, ―Genesis 1 als Programmschrift der Priesterschrift (PG).‖ Pages 333-345 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Beck, John A., Translators as Storytellers: A Study in Septuagint Translation Technique. Studies in Biblical Literature, 25. New York: Peter Lang, 2000. Bender, Adolf, ―Das Lied Exodus 15.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 23 (1903): 1-48. Benjamins, H.S., ―Noah, the Ark, and the Flood in Early Christian Theology: The Ship of the Church in the Making.‖ Pages 134-149 in Interpretations of the Flood. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Gerardus P. Luttikhuizen. Themes in Biblical Narrative, 1. Leiden: Brill, 1998. Berge, Kåre, Reading Sources in a Text. Coherence and Literary Criticism in the Call of Moses: Models— Methods—Micro-Analysis. Arbeiten zu Text und Sprache im Alten Testament, 54. Erzabtei St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1997. Berlin, Adele, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Bible and Literature Series, 9. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Berner, Christoph, Die Exoduserzӓhlung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 73. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
326
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
______, ―The Egyptian Bondage and Solomon‘s Forced Labor: Literary Connections Between Exodus 1-15 and 1 Kings 1-12?‖ Pages 211-240 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2011. Bertman, Stephen, Handbook To Life In Ancient Mesopotamia. New York: Oxford, 2003. Bewer, Julius A., Records of Civilization, Sources and Studies; The Literature of the Old Testament. Rev. ed. Edited by Austin P. Evans. New York: Columbia University Press, 1933. Birkeland, Harris, ―The Belief in the Resurrection of the Dead in the Old Testament.‖ Studia Theologica 3/1 (1949): 60-78. Black, Jeremy and Andrew George and Nicholas Postgate, eds., A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2000. Bleeker, C.J., ―Isis and Nephthys as Wailing Women.‖ Numen 5 (1958): 1-17. Blenkinsopp, Joseph, ―The Structure of P.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38/3 (1976): 275-292. ______, The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday, 1992. ______, Isaiah 40-55. Anchor Bible, 19A. New York: Doubleday, 2002. ______, ―A Post-exilic lay source in Genesis 1-11.‖ Pages 49-61 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. ______, Creation, Un-creation, Re-creation: A Discursive Commentary on Genesis 1-11. New York: T&T Clark, 2011. Blum, Erhard, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 57. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1984 ______, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 189. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1990. ______, ―Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvӓtern und Exodus: Ein Gesprӓch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen.‖ Pages 119-156 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. ______,―Formgeschiche–A Misleading Category? Some Critical Remarks.‖ Pages 32-45 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeny and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. ______, ―The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua.‖ Pages 89-106 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 34. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006. ______, ―Pentateuch–Hexateuch–Enneateuch? order: Woran erkennt man ein literarisches Werk in der hebrӓischen Bibel?‖ Pages 67-97 in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L‟Hexateuque et de L‟Ennéateuque. Edited by T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 203. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007. ______, ―Issues and Problems in the Contemporary Debate Regarding the Priestly Writings.‖ Pages 31-44 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. ______, ―Pentateuch–Hexateuch–Enneateuch? Or: How Can One Recognize a Literary Work in the Hebrew Bible?‖ Pages 43-71 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. Translated by Thomas B. Dozeman and David M. Carr. Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2011. Boorer, Suzanne, ―Source and Redaction Criticism.‖ Pages 95-130 in Methods for Exodus. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman. Methods in Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Bosshard-Nepustil, Erich, Vor uns die Sintflut: Studien zu Text, Kontexten und Rezeption der Fluterzӓhlung Genesis 6-9. Beitrӓge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten und Neuen Testament, 165. Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2005. Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-Josef Fabry, eds., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. Translated by David E. Green and Douglas W. Stott. 15 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978-2006. Brandon, S.G.F., ―A Problem of the Osirian Judgment of the Dead.‖ Numen 5/2 (1958): 110-127. ______, ―The Ritual Perpetuation of the Past.‖ Numen 6/2 (1959): 112-129. ______, Creation Legends of the Ancient Near East. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1963.
327
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Breasted, James Henry, Ancient Records of Egypt. 5 vols. New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1962. Brenner, Athalya, ―Female Social Behaviour: Two Descriptive Patterns within the ‗Birth of the Hero‘ Paradigm.‖ Vetus Testamentum 36/3 (1986): 257-273. Brenner, Martin L., The Song of the Sea: Ex 15.1-21. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 195. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1991. Bridge, Edward J., ―Female Slave vs Female Slave: hmf)f and hxfp;#i in the HB.‖ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 12/2 (2012): 1-21. Briffard, Colette, ―Moïse versus Sargon.‖ Vetus Testamentum 60/4 (2010): 479-482. Bright, John, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1981. Brodie, Thomas L., ―Genesis as Dialogue: Genesis‘ Twenty-Six Diptychs as a Key to Narrative Unity and Meaning.‖ Pages 297-314 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction, and History. Edited by André Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. ______, Genesis as Dialogue: A Literary, Historical, and Theological Commentary. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001. Brooke, George, et al., Qumran Cave 4 XVII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. Discoveries in the Judean Desert, XXII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Brotzman, Ellis R., Old Testament Textual Criticism: A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1994. Brown, Francis, S.R. Driver and Charles A. Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, with an appendix containing the Biblical Aramaic. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 2006. Brueggemann, Walter, ―Kingship and Chaos (A Study in Tenth Century Theology).‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33/3 (1971): 317-332. ______, ―The Kerygma of the Priestly Writer.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 84/4 (1972): 397-413. ______, The Psalms & The Life of Faith. Edited by Patrick D. Miller. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1995. ______, Theology of the Old Testament: Testimony, Dispute, Advocacy. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1997. Buber, Martin, Moses: The Revelation and the Covenant. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1958. Budge, E.A. Wallis, The Nile, 10th ed. London: Cook & Son, 1907. ______, Osiris and the Egyptian Resurrection. 2 vols. New York: G.P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1911. ______, Egyptian Religion: Ideas of the Afterlife in Ancient Egypt. New York: Gramercy Books, 1959. ______, The Book of the Dead: The Hieroglyphic Transcript of the Papyrus of ANI, the Translation into English and an Introduction. New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1968. Burden, Jasper J., ―A Stylistic Analysis of Exodus 15:1-21: Theory and Practice.‖ Pages 34-72 in Exodus 1-15: Text and Context. Edited by J.J. Burden et al. OTSSA/OTSWA, 29. Pretoria: V&R Printing Works, 1987. Busenitz, Irvin A., ―Introduction to the Biblical Covenants: The Noahic Covenant and the Priestly Covenant.‖ The Master‟s Seminary Journal 10/2 (1999): 173-189. Buss, Martin J., ―The Study of Forms.‖ Pages 1-56 in Old Testament Form Criticism. Edited by John H. Hayes. San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University Press, 1974. ______, Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 274. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ______, The Changing Shape of Form Criticism: A Relational Approach. Hebrew Bible Monographs, 18. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2010. Buth, Randall, ―Methodological Collision Between Source Criticism and Discourse Analysis: The Problem of ‗Unmarked Temporal Overlay‘ and the Pluperfect/Nonsequential wayyiqtol.‖ Pages 138-154 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Buttenwieser, Moses, The Psalms. The Library of Biblical Studies. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1969 Buttrick, George Arthur, The Interpreter‟s Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1962-1976. Caird, G.B., ―Homoeophony in the Septuagint.‖ Pages 74-88 in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity. Edited by Robert Hamerton-Kelly and Robin Scroggs. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Calloud, Jean, Structural Analysis of Narrative. Translated by Daniel Patte. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Supplements, 4. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1976. ______, ―A Few Comments on Structural Semiotics: A Brief Review of a Method and Some Explanation of Procedures.‖ Translated by John C. Kerby. Semeia 15 (1979): 51-83. Campbell, Anthony F., ―Form Criticism‘s Future.‖ Pages 15-31 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeny and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, Mich.:
328
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Eerdmans, 2003. Campbell, Colin, The Miraculous Birth of King Amon-Hotep III and other Egytpian Studies. London: Oliver and Boyd, 1912. Carr, David M., Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. ______, ―Controversy and Convergence in Recent Studies of the Formation of the Pentateuch.‖ Religious Studies Review 23/1 (1997): 22-31. ______, ―Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story: Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives.‖ Pages 273-296 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. ______, ―What Is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases.‖ Pages 159-180 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 34. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006. ______, ―The Moses Story: Literary-Historical Reflections.‖ Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel 1/1 (2012): 7-36. Carus, Paul, ―The Conception of the Soul and the Belief in Resurrection among the Egyptians.‖ The Monist 15/3 (1905): 409-428. Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis; pt.1–From Adam to Noah: Genesis I-VI8. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1961. ______, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis; pt.2–From Noah to Abraham: Genesis VI9-XI32. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1964. ______, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus. Translated by Israel Abrahams. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1967. Cathcart, Kevin J. and Gordon, Robert P., The Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes. The Aramaic Bible, vol. 14. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1989. Childs, Brevard S., Myth and Reality in the Old Testament. Studies in Biblical Theology, 27. Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenson, Inc., 1960. ______, Memory and Tradition in Israel. Studies in Biblical Theology, 37. Naperville, Ill.: Alec R. Allenon, Inc.1962. ______, ―The Birth of Moses.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 84/2 (1965): 109-122. ______, ―A Traditio-Historical Study of the Reed Sea Tradition,‖ Vetus Testamentum 20/4 (1970): 406-418 ______, The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1974. ______, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1979. ______, Isaiah. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ______, Biblical Theology: A Proposal. Facets. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2002. Chilton, Bruce D., The Isaiah Targum. The Aramaic Bible, vol. 11. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1987. Clark, W. Malcolm, ―The Animal Series in the Primeval History.‖ Vetus Testamentum 18/4 (1968): 433-449. ______, ―The Flood and the Structure of the Pre-patriarchal History.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 83/2 (1971): 184-211. ______, ―The Righteousness of Noah.‖ Vetus Testamentum 21/3 (1971): 261-280. Clements, R.E., ―Deuteronomy and the Jerusalem Cult Tradition,‖ Vetus Testamentum 15/3 (1965): 300-312. Clements, Ruth, ―A Shelter amid the Flood: Noah‘s Ark in Early Jewish and Christian Art.‖ Pages 277-299 in Noah and His Book(s). Edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature, 28. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2010. Clifford, Richard J., The Cosmic Mountain in Canaan and the Old Testament. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972. ______, ―The Hebrew Scriptures and the Theology of Creation.‖ Theological Studies 46/3 (1985): 507-523. Clines, D.J.A., ―Theme in Genesis 1-11.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 38/4 (1976): 483-507. ______, ―The Significance of the ‗Sons of God‘ Episode (Genesis 6:1-4) in the Context of the ‗Primeval History‘ (Genesis 1-11).‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13/3 (1979): 33-46. ______, The Theme of the Pentateuch. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. ______, ―Beyond Synchronic/Diachronic.‖ Pages 52-71 in Synchronic or Diachronic?: A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. Oudtestamentische Studiën, 34. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Coats, George W., ―The Traditio-Historical Character of the Reed Sea Motif.‖ Vetus Testamentum 17/3 (1967): 253-265. ______, ―The Song of the Sea.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 31/1 (1969): 1-17.
329
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
______, Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, I. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983. ______, ―Tale.‖ Pages 63-70 in Saga, Legend, Tale, Novella, Fable: Narrative Forms in Old Testament Literature. Edited by George W. Coats. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 35. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985. ______, Exodus 1-18. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature, IIA. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. Coggins, Richard, The Book of Exodus. Epworth Commentaries. Peterborough: Epworth, 2000. Cohen, Abraham, Everyman‟s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages. Schocken Books: New York, 1995. Cohen, Chayim, ―Hebrew tbh: Proposed Etymologies.‖ Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society Columbia University 4 (1972): 37-51. Cohen, Jonathan, The Origins and Evolution of the Moses Nativity Story. Studies in the History of Religions (Numen Bookseries), 58. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1993. Cohn, Robert L., ―Narrative Structure and Canonical Perspective in Genesis.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 25/3 (1983): 3-16. Cogan, Morton, ―A Technical Term for Exposure.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27/2 (1968): 133-135. Collins, C. John, ―The Wayyiqtol as ‗Pluperfect‘: When and Why.‖ Tyndale Bulletin 46/1 (1995): 117-140. ______, ―Noah, Deucalion, and the New Testament.‖ Biblica 93/3 (2012): 403-426. Collins, Nina L. The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 82. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Coogan, Michael David, ―A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40/2 (1978): 143-165. Copisarow, Maurice, ―The Ancient Egyptian, Greek and Hebrew Concept of the Red Sea.‖ Vetus Testamentum 21/1 (1962): 1-13. Cosquin, Emmanuel, Le Lait de la Mère et Le Coffre Flottant. Paris: Bureau de la Revue, 1908. Craigie, P. C., ―The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 88/3 (1969): 253-265. ______, ―An Egyptian Expression in the Song of the Sea (Exodus XV 4).‖ Vetus Testamentum 20/1 (1970): 83- 86. ______, ―Psalm XXIX in the Hebrew Poetic Tradition,‖ Vetus Testamentum 22/2 (1972): 143-151. ______, The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1978. ______, Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983. Craigie, Peter C. and Marvin E. Tate, Psalms 1-50. Word Biblical Commentary, 19, 2nd ed. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Inc., 2004. Cross, Frank Moore, ―Notes on a Canaanite Psalm in the Old Testament.‖ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 117 (1950): 19-21. ______, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. ______, ―Prose and Poetry in the Mythic and Epic Texts from Ugarit.‖ Harvard Theological Review 67/1 (1974) 1-15. Cross, Frank M. and David Noel Freedman, Early Hebrew Orthography: A Study of the Epigraphic Evidence. American Oriental Series, 36. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Series, 1952. ______, ―The Song of Miriam.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 14/4 (1955): 237-250. ______, Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 21. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975. Crüsemann, Frank, The Torah: Theological and Social History of Old Testament Law. Translated by Allan W. Mahnke. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1996. Culley, R.C., ―An Approach to the Problem of Oral Tradition.‖ Vetus Testamentum 13/2 (1963): 113-125. Culley, Robert C., Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Narrative. Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Supplements, 3. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1976. Dahood, Mitchell, Psalm I, 1-50. Anchor Bible, 16. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1965. ______, ―Eblaite and Biblical Hebrew.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 44 (1982): 1-24. Danker, Frederick William, et al. ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago, Ill.: The University of Chicago Press, 2000. Davidson, Robert, Genesis 1-11. The Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: University Press, 1973. Davies, G. Henton, Exodus, Introduction and Commentary. Torch Bible Commentaries. London: SCM Press LTD, 1967. Davies, Graham, ―The Transition from Genesis to Exodus.‖ Pages 59-78 in Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: A Festschrift to honor Professor John Emerton for his eightieth birthday. Edited by Katharine J. Dell, Graham Davies, and Yee Von Koh. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 135. Leiden: Brill, 2010.
330
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Davies, Gordon F., Israel in Egypt: Reading Exodus 1-2. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 135. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Davis, Whitney M., ―The Ascension-Myth in the Pyramid Texts.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36/3 (1977): 161-179. Day, John, ―Echoes of Baal‘s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm XXIX and Habakkuk III 9 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah VI.‖ Vetus Testamentum 29/2 (1979): 143-151. ______, God‟s Conflict with the Dragon and the Sea: Echoes of a Canaanite myth in the Old Testament. University of Cambridge Oriental Publications, 35. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Dijkstra, M., ―The Geography of the Story of Balaam: Synchronic Reading as a Help to Date a Biblical Text.‖ Pages 72-97 in Synchronic or Diachronic?: A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. Oudtestamentische Studiën, 34. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Diodorus Siculus, Diodorus On Egypt. Book I of Diodorus Siculus‟ Historical Library. Translated by Edwin Murphy. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 1985. Dion, Paul E., Hebrew Poetics, 2nd ed. Mississuaga: Benben Publications, 1922. Dohmen, Christoph, ―Untergang oder Rettung der Quellenscheidung? Die Sintfluterzählung als Prüfstein der Pentateuchexegese.‖ Pages 81-104 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction, and History. Edited by A. Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Douglas, J.D. and N. Hillyer, eds., The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. 3 vols. Wheaton: Ill.: Tyndale House Publishing, 1980. Dozeman, Thomas B., ―The yam-sûp in the Exodus and the Crossing of the Jordan River.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58/3 (1996): 407-416. ______, God At War: Power in the Exodus Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. ______, ―The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis.‖ Pages 107-129 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 34. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006. ______, Exodus. Eerdmans Critical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009. Driver, S.R., The Book of Genesis. Westminster Commentary. London: Nethuen & Co., 1904. ______, The Book of Exodus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1953. Durham, John I., Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary, 3. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987. Eakin, Jr., Frank E., ―The Reed Sea and Baalism.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 378-84. Eichrodt, Walther, Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 2. Translated by J.A. Baker. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1967. Eissfeldt, Otto, The Old Testament: An Introduction. Translated by Peter R. Ackroyd. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1965. Ellis, Peter F., The Yahwist: The Bible‟s First Theologian. Notre Dame, Ind.: Fides Publishers, Inc., 1968. Emerton, J. A., ―Leviathan and LTN: The Vocalization of the Ugaritic Word for the Dragon.‖ Vetus Testamentum 32/3 (1982): 327-331. ______, ―An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis, Part I.‖ Vetus Testamentum 37/4 (1987): 401-420. ______, ―An Examination of Some Attempts to Defend the Unity of the Flood Narrative in Genesis, Part II.‖ Vetus Testamentum 38/1 (1988): 1-21. ______, ―The Priestly Writer in Genesis.‖ Journal of Theological Studies 39/2 (1988): 381-400. Emery, Ronald Douglas, Method in Comparisons of Atrahasis and the Genesis Flood Account. M.A. Thesis, Florida State University, 1992. Enns, Peter, Exodus Retold: Ancient Exegesis of the Departure from Egypt in Wis 10:15-21 and 19:1-9. Harvard Semitic Monographs, 57. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1997. Erman, Adolf, ―Gebete eines ungerecht Verfolgten und andere Ostraka aus den Königsgräbern.‖ Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 38 (1900): 19-41. Erman, Adolf and Hermann Grapow, Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache, band 1-7. Berlin: Akademie– Verlag, 1971. Eslinger, Lyle, ―A Contextual Identification of the bene ha‗elohim and benoth ha‗adam in Genesis 6:1-4.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13/2 (1979): 65-73. ______, ―Freedom or Knowledge? Perspectives and Purpose in the Exodus Narrative (Exodus 1-15).‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 52/4 (1991): 43-60. Euripides. Ion Hippolytus, Medea, Alestis, vol.4. Translated by T.E. Page. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946. Exum, J. Cheryl, ―‗You Shall Let Every Daughter Live‘: A Study of Exodus 1:8-2:10.‖ Semeia 28 (1983): 63- 82.
331
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
______, ―Second Thoughts about Secondary Characters: Women in Exodus 1.8–2.10.‖ Pages 75-87 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Vol.6 of The Feminist Companion to the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Feldman, Louis H., ―Philo‘s View of Moses‘ Birth and Upbringing,‖ CBQ 64 (2002): 258-281. Fensham, F.C., ―Psalm 29 and Ugarit.‖ Pages 84-99 in Studies in the Psalms: Papers Read at 6th Meeting held at the Potchefstroom University for C.H.E., 29-31 January 1963. Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeen- skap in Suid-Afrika. Potchefstroom, South Africa: Pro Rege – Pers Beperk, 1963. Finlay, Timothy D., The Birth Report Genre in the Hebrew Bible. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, II/12. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Finnestad, Ragnhild Bjerre, ―Ptah, Creator of the Gods: Reconsideration of the Ptah Section of the Denkmal.‖ Numen 23/2 (1976): 81-113. Firmage, Edwin, ―Genesis 1 and the Priestly Agenda.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 82/1 (1999): 97-114. Fischer, Georg, ―Exodus 1-15. Eine Erzӓhlung.‖ Pages 149-178 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction– Reception–Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 127. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. Fishbane, Michael, Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York: Schocken Books, 1979. ______, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Fisher, Eugene, ―Gilgamesh and Genesis: The Flood Story in Context.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32 (1970): 392-403. Fisher, Loren R., ―Creation at Ugarit and in the Old Testament.‖ Vetus Testamentum 15/3 (1965): 313-324. Fisher, Loren R. and F. Brent Knutson, ―An Enthronement Ritual at Ugarit.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 28/3 (1969): 157-167. Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I: A Commentary. BO–18. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1966. Fleishman, Joseph, ―Did a Child‘s Legal Status in Biblical Israel Depend upon his being Acknowledged?‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 121/3 (2009): 350-368. Fohrer, Georg, berlieferung und Geschichte des Exodus: eine Analyse von Ex 1-15. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 91. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1964. ______, Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by David E. Green. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1968. Follansbee, Eleanor, ―The Story of the Flood in the Light of Comparative Semitic Mythology.‖ Pages 75-87 in The Flood Myth. Edited by Alan Dundes. Berkley: University of California Press, 1988. Forbes, R.J., Studies in Ancient Technology, vol.1. Leiden: Brill, 1955. ______, Studies in Ancient Technology, vol.4. Leiden: Brill, 1987. Ford, J.N., ―Another Look at the Mandaic Incantation Bowl BM 91715.‖ Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 29 (2002): 31-47. Forrest, Robert W. E., ―Paradise Lost Again: Violence and Obedience in the Flood Narrative.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 62/2 (1994): 3-18. Fox, Michael V., ―The Sign of the Covenant: Circumcision in the Light of the Priestly ‟ôt Etiologies.‖ Révue Biblique 81 (1974): 557-596. Frazer, James George, ―The Great Flood.‖ Pages 113-123 in The Flood Myth. Edited by Alan Dundes. Berkley: University of California Press, 1988. Freedman, David Noel, ―Archaic Forms in Early Hebrew Poetry.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 72 (1960): 101-107. ______, Pottery, Poetry, and Prophecy: Studies in Early Hebrew Poetry. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1980. ______, ed., Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992 Freedman, David Noel & Hyland, C. Franke, ―Psalm 29: A Structural Analysis.‖ Harvard Theological Review 66/2 (1973): 237-256. Frerichs, Wendell W., ―Death and Resurrection in the Old Testament.‖ Word & World 11/1 (1991): 14-22. Fretheim, Terence E., ―The God of the Flood Story and Natural Disasters.‖ Calvin Theological Journal 43/1 (2008): 21-34. Fritz, Volkmar, ―»Solange die Erde steht« – Vom Sinn der jahwistischen Fluterzählung in Gen 6-8.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 94/4 (1982): 599-614. Frolov, Serge, The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1-8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 342. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2004. ______, ―How Old Is the Song of Deborah?,‖ JSOT 36/2 (2011): 163-184. Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, ―The Atrahasis Epic and it Significance for our Understanding of Genesis 1-9.‖ Biblical
332
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Archaeologist 40/4 (1977): 147-155. Fuchs, Esther, ―A Jewish-Feminist Reading of Exodus 1-2.‖ Pages 307-326 in Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures. Edited by Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 8. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2000. Gardiner, Alan H., The Chester Beatty Papyri, No.1. London: Oxford University Press, 1931. Garrett, Duane A., Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Bible. Great Britain: Mentor, 2000. Gaster, Theodor Herzl, Myth, Legends, and Custom in the Old Testament, vol.1. Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1981. Gelston, A., ―A Note on Klm hwhy.‖ Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): 507-512. George, A.R., ―The Epic of Gilgameš: Thoughts on Genre and Meaning.‖ Pages 37-65 in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21-23 July 2004. Edited by Joseph Azize and Noel Weeks. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 21. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Gerhards, Meik, Die Aussetzungeschichte des Mose: Literar- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Schlüsseltext des nichtpriesterlichen Tetrateuch. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 109. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006. Gertz, Jan Christian, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzӓhlung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch. Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. ______, ―Noah und die Propheten: Rezeption und Reformulierung eines altorientalischen Mythos.‖ Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte 81/4 (2007): 503-522. ______, ―Source Criticism in the Primeval History of Genesis: An Outdated Paradigm for the Study of the Pentateuch?‖ Pages 169-180 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Gibson, J.C.L., Canaanite Myths and Legends. Edited by G.R. Driver. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977. Giese, Ronald L, Jr., ―Strophic Hebrew Verse as Free Verse.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 61/1 (1994): 29-38. Gilders, William K., ―Sacrifice before Sinai and the Priestly Narratives.‖ Pages 57-72 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. Gillingham, S.E., The Poems and Psalms of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Gmirkin, Russell E., Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 433 / Copenhagen International Series, 15. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Gnuse, Robert K., ―Redefining the Elohist.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 119/2 (2000): 201-220. Golka, W. Friedemann, ―The Aetiologies in the Old Testament; Part 1.‖ Vetus Testamentum 26/4 (1976): 410- 428. ______, ―The Aetiologies in the Old Testament; Part 2.‖ Vetus Testamentum 27/1 (1977): 36-47. Gordon, Cyrus H., Ugarit and Minoan Crete: The Bearing of Their Texts on the Origins of Western Culture. New York: W.W. Norton, 1966. Gosse, Bernard, ―Le texte d‘Exode 15,1-21 dans la rédaction Biblique.‖ Biblische Zeitschrift 37/3 (1993): 264- 271. ______, ―Moïse entre l‘alliance des Patriarches et celle du Sinaï.‖ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 11/1 (1997): 3-15. Gowan, Donald E., Theology in Exodus: Biblical Theology in the Form of a Commentary. Louisville, Ky., Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. Grabbe, Lester L., ―Comparative Philology and Exodus 15,8: Did the Egyptians Die in a Storm?‖ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7/3 (1993): 263-269. Granerød, Gard, ―Omnipresent in Narratives, Disputed among Grammarians: Some Contributions to the Understanding of wayyiqtol and their Underlying Paradigms.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 121/3 (2009): 418-434. Graves, Robert and Raphael Patai, Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963. Greenwood, David, ―Rhetorical Criticism and Formgeschichte: Some Methodological Considerations.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 89/4 (1970): 418-426. Greifenhagen, F.V., Egypt on the Pentateuch‟s Ideological Map: Constructing Biblical Israel‟s Identity. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 361. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.
333
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Grenfell, Alice, ―Egyptian Mythology and the Bible.‖ The Monist 16/2 (1906): 169-200. Gressmann, Hugo, Mose und seine Zeit: ein kommentar zu den Mose-sagen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. Gretz, Jan Christian, ―The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus.‖ Pages 73-88 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 34. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006. ______, ―The Formation of the Primeval History.‖ Pages 107-135 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr and David L. Petersen. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Griffiths, F.L., ―Herodotus II. 90. Apotheosis by drowning.‖ Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 46 (1909): 132-134. Griffiths, J. Gwyn, ―The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12/4 (1953): 225-231. ______, The Conflict of Horus and Seth: From Egyptian to Classical Sources. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1960. ______, Plutarch‟s De Iside et Osiride. Great Britian: University of Wales Press, 1970. Groenewald, Alphonso, ―Changing Paradigms: Old Testament Scholarship Between Synchrony and Diachrony.‖ Pages 108-123 in South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony. Edited by J. le Roux and E. Otto. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 463. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Grønbæk, Jakob H., ―Baal‘s Battle with Yam–A Canaanite Creation Fight.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 33 (1985): 27-44. Gruber, Mayer I., ―Breast-Feeding Practices in Biblical Israel and in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia.‖ Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 19 (1989): 61-83. Guillaume, Philippe, Land and Calendar: The Priestly Document from Genesis 1 to Joshua 18. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 391. London: T&T Clark, 2009. Gunkel, Hermann, The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History. Translated by W.H. Carruth. New York: Schocken Books, 1964. ______, The Folktale in the Old Testament. Translated by Michael D. Rutter. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1987. ______, Genesis. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1997. ______, Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. Translated by K. William Whitney Jr. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2006. Gunn, David M., ―Deutero-Isaiah and the Flood.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 94/4 (1975): 493-508. Habel, Norman, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1971. Hamilton, Victor P., The Book of Genesis, Chapters 1-17. New International Commentary on the Old Testament, 1. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1990. ______, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011. Hӓmmerly-Dupuy, Daniel, ―Some Observations on the Assyro-Babylonian and Sumerian Flood Stories.‖ Pages 49-59 in The Flood Myth. Edited by Alan Dundes; Berkley: University of California Press, 1988. Hammond, Philip C., ―The Nabataean Bitumen Industry at the Dead Sea.‖ Biblical Archaeologist 22/2 (1959): 40-48. Hals, Ronald M., ―Legend: A Case Study in OT Form-Critical Terminology.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 34/2 (1972): 166-176. Haran, Menahem, ―Behind the Scenes of History: Determining the Date of the Priestly Source.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 100/3 (1981): 321-333. Harner, P.B., ―Creation Faith in Deutero-Isaiah.‖ Vetus Testamentum 17/3 (1967): 298-306. Harl, Marguerite, ―Le Nom de ‗L‘arche‘ de Noe dans La Septante: Les choix lexicaux des traducteurs alexandrins, indices d‘interpretations théologiques?‖ Pages 15-43 in ALECANDRIA: Hellénisme, judaïsme et christianisme à Alexandrie: Mélanges Claude Mondésert, S.J. Paris: Cerf, 1987. Harland, J.P., ―A Further Note on Genesis VI 13.‖ Vetus Testamentum 43/3 (1993): 408-411. ______, The Value of Human Life: A Study of the Story of the Flood (Genesis 6-9). Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 64. Brill: Leiden, 1996. Harris, William W., The Levant: a Fractured Mosaic. Princeton: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2003. Hartman, L.F. and A.A. Di Lella, The Book of Daniel. Anchor Bible. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1978. Hartman, Thomas C., ―Some Thoughts on the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5 and 11B.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 91/1 (1972): 25-32. Haupt, Paul, ―Moses‘ Song of Triumph.‖ The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature 20/3 (1904): 149-172.
334
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
______, The Ship of the Babylonian Noah and other papers. Beiträge zur Allyriologie und Semitischen Sprachwissenschaft. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs‘sche Buchhandlung, 1927. Hauser, Alan J., ―Two Songs of Victory: A Comparison of Exodus 15 and Judges 5.‖ Pages 265-284 in Direction of Biblical Hebrew Poetry. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 40. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987. Hay, Lewis S., ―What Really Happened At The Sea of Reeds?‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 84/3 (1964): 397- 403. Hayes, John H. and J. Maxwell Miller, eds., Israelite and Judean History. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1977. Hayes, John H. and Frederick Prussner, Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development. Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1985. Hays, Christopher B., ―The Covenant with Mut: A New Interpretation of Isaiah 28:1-22.‖ Vetus Testamentum 60/2 (2010): 212-240. ______, Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 79. Tübigen: Mohr Seibeck, 2011. Heidel, Alexander, The Gilgamesh Epic and Old Testament Parallels. 2nd ed. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1949. Heimerdinger, Jean-Marc, Topic, Focus and Foreground in Ancient Hebrew Narratives. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 295. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Heller, Jan, ―Sagen und Sprechen: Sagen (‘amar) und Sprechen (dibber) im Alten Testament.‖ Communio viatorum 22/3 (1979): 173-179. Helck, Wolfgang, ― und Die Ramses-Stadt.‖ Vetus Testamentum 15/1 (1965): 35-48. Hendel, Ronald S., ―Of Demigods and the Deluge: Toward an Interpretation of Genesis 6:1-4.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 106/1 (1987): 13-26. ______, The Text of Genesis 1-11: Textual Studies and Critical Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. ______, ―Is the ‗J‘ Primeval Narrative an Independent Composition? A Critique of Crüsemann‘s ‗Die Eigenständigkeit der Urgeshichte‘.‖ Pages 181-205 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Herodotus. Books I-II. Translated by A.D. Godley. Loeb Classical Library, 117. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1996. Heras, Henry, ―‗The Crow‘ of Noe.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 10/2 (1948): 131-139. Herbert, A.S., The Book of the Prophet Isaiah: Chapters 40-66. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Hertz, J.H., ed., The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, 2nd ed. London: Soncino Press, 1960. Hess, Richard S., Studies in the Personal Names of Genesis 1-11. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Hiebert, Theodore, The Yahwist‟s Landscape: Nature and Religion in Early Israel. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2008. Hildebrand, David R., ―A Summary of Recent Findings in Support of an Early Date for the So-called Priestly Material of the Pentateuch.‖ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 29/2 (1986): 129-138. Hoftijzer, J., ―Holistic or Compositional Approach? Linguistic Remarks to the Problem.‖ Pages 98-114 in Synchronic or Diachronic?: A Debate on Method in Old Testament Exegesis. Edited by Johannes C. de Moor. Oudtestamentische Studiën, 34. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Holladay, William L., ―‘Ereṣ—Underworld: Two More Suggestions.‖ Vetus Testamentum 19/1 (1969): 123-124. Holloway, Steven W., ―What Ship Goes There: The Flood Narratives in the Gilgamesh Epic and Genesis Considered in Light of Ancient Near Eastern Temple Ideology.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 103 (1991): 328-355. Holley, N.M., ―The Floating Chest.‖ The Journal of Hellenic Studies 69 (1949): 39-47. Holmgren, Fredrick Carlson, ―Chiastic Structure in Isaiah 51:1-11.‖ Vetus Testamentum 19/2 (1969): 196-201. Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar and Erich Zenger, Psalm 2: A Commentary on Psalms 51-100. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 2005. Houk, Cornelius B., ―Statistical Analysis of Genesis Sources.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 27/1 (2002): 75-105. House, Paul R., ―The Rise and Current Status of Literary Criticism of the Old Testament.‖ Pages 3-22 in Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Edited by Paul R. House. Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, 2. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Houtman, Cornelis, Exodus, vol.1: Chapters 1:1–7:13. Translated by Johan Rebel and Sierd Woudstra. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen: Kok Publishing House, 1993. ______, Exodus, vol.2: Chapters 7:14–19:25. Translated by Sierd Woudstra. Historical Commentary on the Old Testament. Kampen: Kok Publishing House, 1996.
335
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Howell, Maribeth, A Song of Salvation: Exodus 15,1b-18. Ph.D. diss., Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Faculty of Theology, 1986. Huehnergard, John, A Grammar of Akkadian. 2nd ed. Harvard Semitic Museum Studies, 45. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Hulst, A.R., ―Kol baśar in der Priesterlichen Fluterzählung.‖ Oudtestamentische Studiën 12/1 (1958): 28-68. Human, Dirk J. ―Africa in Need of an Exodus?! Perspectives on the Theology of Exodus 15:1-21.‖ Pages 74-96 in A Critical Study of the Pentateuch: An Encounter Between Europe and Africa. Altes Testament und Moderne, 20. Münster: Lit Verlag, 2005. Hutton, Jeremy M., ―Isaiah 51:9-11 and the Rhetorical Appropriation and Subversion of Hostile Theologies.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 126/2 (2007): 271-303. Hyatt, J. Philip, Exodus. New Century Bible (Commentary). London: Oliphants, 1971. International Organization for the Study of the Old Testament–The Peshiṭta Institute, eds., The Old Testament in Syriac; pt.1, fasc.1 – Genesis–Exodus. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1977. Isbell, Charles, ―Exodus 1-2 in the Context of Exodus 1-14: Story Lines and Key Words.‖ Pages 37-61 in Arts and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Edited by David J.A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 19. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Jacob, B., The First Book of the Bible: Genesis. Edited and Translated by Ernest I Jacob and Walter Jacob. New York: KTAV Publishing House, Inc., 1974. Jacob, Edmond, Theology of the Old Testament. Translated by Arthur W. Heathcote & Philip J. Allcock. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1958. Jacobs, Vivian and Isaac Rosensohn, ―The Myth of Môt and ‘Al‘eyan Ba‗al.‖ Harvard Theological Review 38/2 (1945): 77-109. Jacobsen, Thorkild, The Sumerian King List. Assyriological Studies, 11. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1973. ______, ―The Eridu Genesis.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 100/4 (1981): 513-529. Jenssen, J.J., ―The Day the Inundation Began.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46/2 (1987): 129-136. Janzen, J. Gerald, ―Kugel‘s Adverbial : An Assessment.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 102/1 (1983): 99- 117. ______, ―Song of Moses, Song of Miriam: Who is Seconding Whom?‖ Pages 187-199 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Vol.6 of The Feminist Companion to the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ______, Exodus. Westminster Bible Commentary. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997. Jaubert, A., ―Le Calendrier Des Jubilés et de La Secte de Qumrân: Ses Origines Bibliques.‖ Vetus Testamentum 3/3 (1953): 250-264. ______, ―Le Calendrier Des Jubilés et Les Jours Liturgiques de La Semaine.‖ Vetus Testamentum 7/1 (1957): 35-61. Jacquet-Gordon, Helen, ―The Festival on Which Amun Went out to the Treasury.‖ Pages 121-123 in Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. Edited by Peter J. Brand and Louise Cooper. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Jefferson, Helen G., ―Psalm LXXVII.‖ Vetus Testamentum 13/1 (1963): 87-91. Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann, Claus, eds, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. 3 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997. Jonker, Louis C., Exclusivity and Variety: Perspectives on Multidimensional Exegesis. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 19. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1996. ______, ―Reading the Pentateuch With Both Eyes Open: On Reading Biblical Texts Multidimensionally.‖ Pages 90-107 in South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony. Edited by J. le Roux and E. Otto. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 463. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Joosten, Jan, ―The Indicative System of the Biblical Hebrew Verb and Its Literary Exploitation.‖ Pages 51-71 in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Edited by Ellen Van Wolde; Biblical Interpretation Series, 29. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______, ―A Note on the wəyiqtol and Volitive Sequences.‖ Vetus Testamentum 59/3 (2009): 495-498. Joüon, Paul, A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. vol. II Part Three: Syntax. Translated by T. Muraoka. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996. Kakkanattu, Joy Philip, God‟s Enduring Love in the Book of Hosea: A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of Hosea 11,1-11. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006. Kaminski, Carol M., ―Beautiful Women or ‗False Judgment‘? Interpreting Genesis 6.2 in the Context of the Primaeval History.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32/4 (2008): 457-473. Kaminsky, Joel S., ―The Theology of Genesis.‖ Pages 635-656 in The Book of Genesis: Composition,
336
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Reception, and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr and David L. Petersen. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 152. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Kang, Sa-Moon, Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 177. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Kautzsch, E., ed., Gesenius‟ Hebrew Grammar. Translated by A.E. Cowley. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910. Kawashima, Robert S., ―Homo Faber in J‘s Primeval History.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 116/4 (2004): 483-501. Klein, Anja, ―Hymn and History in Ex. 15: Observations on the Relationship between Temple Theology and Exodus Narrative in the Song of the Sea.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 124/3 (2012): 516-527. Kelley, Page H. & Daniel S. Mynatt & Timothy G. Crawford, The Massorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998. Kidner, Derek, Genesis, An Introduction and Commentary. Tyndale Old Testament Commentary. Downers Grove, Ill.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967. Kim, Hyun Chul Paul, ―Gender Complementarity in the Hebrew Bible.‖ Pages 263-291 in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. Edited by Wonil Kim et al. Studies in Antiquity & Christianity, 1. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2000. ______, ―Form Criticism in Dialogue with Other Criticisms: Building the Multidimensional Structures of Texts and Concepts.‖ Pages 85-104 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeny and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. King, Leonard W., Legends of Babylon and Egypt in Relation to Hebrew Tradition. London: Oxford University Press, 1918. Kirkpatrick, Patricia G., The Old Testament and Folklore Study. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 62. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1988. Kissling, Paul J., ―The Rainbow in Genesis 9:12-17: A Triple Entendre?‖ Stone-Campbell Journal 4 (2001): 249-261. Kitchen, K.A., ―From the Brickfields of Egypt.‖ Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976): 137-147. Kittel, R; ed., Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Kline, Meredith G., ―Because It Had Not Rained.‖ Westminster Theological Journal 20/2 (1958): 146-157. ______, ―Divine Kingship and Genesis 6:1-4.‖ Westminster Theological Journal 24/2 (1967): 187-204. ______, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview. Overland Park, KS: Two Ages Press, 2000. Kloos, Carola J.L., ―The Flood on Speaking Terms with God.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 94/4 (1982): 639-642. ______, Yhwh‟s Combats with the Sea: A Canaanite Tradition in the Religion of Ancient Israel. Leiden: Brill, 1986. Knierim, Rolf, ―Old Testament Form Criticism Reconsidered.‖ Interpretation 27/4 (1973): 435-468. ______, ―On the Task of Old Testament Theology.‖ Pages 21-32 in Reading the Hebrew Bible for a New Millennium: Form, Concept, and Theological Perspective. Edited by Wonil Kim et al. Studies in Antiquity & Christianity, 1. Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 2000. Knohl, Israel, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2007. Koch, Klaus, The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method. Translated by S.M. Cupitt. New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1969. ______―P-Kein Redaktor! Erinnerung an zwei Eckdaten der Quellenscheidung.‖ Vetus Testamentum 37/4 (1987): 446-467. Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 2 vols. London: Brill, 2001. Koskenniemi, Erkki, The Exposure of Infants Among Jews and Christians in Antiquity. The Social World of Biblical Antiquity, Second Series, 4. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2009. Kramer, S.N., ―The Epic of Gilgameš and Its Sumerian Sources: A Study in Literary Evolution.‖ Journal of the American Oriental Society 64/1 (1944): 7-23. Kratz, Reinhard G., Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments. Göttingen: Vandenkoech & Ruprecht, 2000. ______, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament. Translated by John Bowden. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Kraus, Hans-Joachim, Psalms 60-150: A Commentary. Translated by Hilton C. Oswald. Continental Commentary. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1993. Krentz, Edgar, The Historical-Critical Method. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2001. Kruger, H.A.J., ―Subscripts To Creation: A Few Exegetical Comments on the Literary Device of Repetition in
337
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Gen 1-11.‖ Pages 429-445 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction, and History. Edited by A. Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Kselman, John S., ―A Note on Gen 7:11.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 35/4 (1973): 491-493. ______, ―Psalm 77 and the Book of Exodus.‖ Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 15 (1983): 51-58. Kugel, James L., ―The Adverbial use of .‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 99/3 (1980): 433-435. ______, The Idea of Biblical Poetry: Parallelism and its History. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1981. Kutsch, Ernst, ―Der Kalendar Des Jubiläenbuches und Das Alte und Das Neue Testament.‖ Vetus Testamentum 11/1 (1961): 39-41. Lacocque, Andre, ―L‘idee Directrice de Exode I a IV.‖ Vetus Testamentum 15/3 (1965): 345-353. Lambert, W.G. & A.R. Millard, Atra-ḫasīs: The Babylonian Story of the Flood, with The Sumerian Flood Story by M. Civil. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969. Lambert, W.G., ―A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis.‖ Journal of Theological Studies 16 (1965): 287-300. Lambdin, Thomas O., ―Egyptian Loan Words in the Old Testament.‖ Journal of the American Oriental Society 73 (1953): 145-155. ______, ―Egypt: Its Language and Literature.‖ Pages 279-297 in The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Edited by G. Ernest Wright. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, & Company, Inc., 1961. ______, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1971. ______, Introduction to Sahidic Coptic. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University Press, 1982. Larsson, Gerhard, ―Chronological Parallels Between the Creation and the Flood.‖ Vetus Testamentum 27/4 (1977): 490-492. Lawton, Robert B. ―Irony in Early Exodus.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 97 (1985): 414. Layton, Bentley, ed., Nag Hammadi Codex II,2-7, vol.1. Nag Hammadi Studies, 20. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989. ______, A Coptic Grammar with Chrestomathy and Glossary: Sahidic Dialect. 2nd ed. Porta Linguarum Orientalium, 20. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2004. Leder, Arie C., ―The Coherence of Exodus: Narrative Unity and Meaning.‖ Calvin Theological Journal 36/2 (2001): 251-269. Lemche, Niels Peter, ―The Chronology in the Story of the Flood.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 18 (1980): 52-62. Leuchter, Mark, ―‗Why Tarry The Wheels of his Chariot?‘ (Judg 5,28): Canaanite Chariots and Echoes of Egypt in the Song of Deborah.‖ Biblica 91/2 (2010): 256-268. ______, ―Eisodus as Exodus: The Song of the Sea (Exod 15) Reconsidered.‖ Biblica 92/3 (2011): 321-346. Leupold, H.C., Exposition of the Psalms. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1969. Levin, Christoph, Der Jahwist. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993. ______, ―The Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus.‖ Pages 131-142 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 34. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006. ______, ―The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch.‖ Translated by Margaret Kohl. Journal of Biblical Literature 126/2 (2007): 209-230. Levin, Yigal, ―Nimrod the mighty, King of Kish, King of Sumer and Akkad.‖ Vetus Testamentum 52/3 (2002): 350-366. Levenson, Jon D., Creation and the Persistence of Evil: The Jewish Drama of Divine Omnipotence. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1988. ______, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1993. ______, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2006. Lewis, Brian, The Sargon Legend: A Study of the Akkadian Text and the Tale of the Hero who was Exposed at Birth. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series, 4. Cambridge, Mass.: American Schools of Oriental Research, 1980. Lewis, Jack P., A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and the Flood in Jewish and Christian Literature. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1968. ______, ―Noah and the Flood in Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Tradition.‖ Biblical Archaeologist 47/4 (1984) 224-239. Lichtheim, Miriam, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol.1-3: The Old and Middle Kingdom. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California Press, 1973-1980. Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert, A Greek-English Lexicon. 9th ed. with rev. supplement. Oxford:
338
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Clarendon Press, 1996. Lieberman, Stephen J., The Sumerian loanwords in Old-Babylonian Akkadian. Harvard Semitic Studies, 22. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1977. Lim, Timothy H., ―The Chronology of the Flood Story in a Qumran Text (4Q252).‖ Journal for Jewish Studies 43/2 (1992): 288-298. Linafelt, Tod, ―Prolegomena to Meaning, or, What is ‗Literary‘ about the Torah?‖ Theological Studies 69 (2008): 62-79. Lind, Millard C., Yahweh is a Warrior: The Theology of Warfare in Ancient Israel. Scottdale, Pa.: Herald Press, 1980. Linder, Josef, ―Das Siegeslied des Moses, Ex. 15.‖ Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 44 (1920): 43-77. Lipiński, Edward, ―Yāhweh Mâlāk.‖ Biblica 44 (1963): 405-460. Lissarrague, François, ―Women, Boxes, Containers: Some Signs and Metaphors.‖ Pages 91-101 in Pandora: Women in Classical Greece. Edited by Ellen D. Reeder. Baltimore, Maryland: The Walters Art Gallary & Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1995. Loewe, Raphael, ―Ark, Archaisms and Misappropriations.‖ Pages 113-145 in Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman. Edited by Ada Papoport-Albert and Gillian Greenberg. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 333. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001. Loewenstamm, Samuel E., ―Die Wasser der biblischen Sintflut: ihr Hereinbrechen und ihr Verschwinden.‖ Vetus Testamentum 34/2 (1984): 179-194. Lohfink, Norbert, Studien zum Pentateuch. Stuttgarter Biblische Aufsatzbӓnde, 4. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1988. ______, Theology of the Pentateuch: Themes of the Priestly Narrative and Deuteronomy. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1994. Long, Burke O., The Problem of Etiological Narrative in the Old Testament. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 108. Berlin: Verlag Alfred Töpelmann, 1968. ______, ―Framing Repetitions in Biblical Historiography.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 106/3 (1987): 385- 399. ______, ―Recent Field Studies in Oral Literature and Their Bearing on OT Criticism.‖ Vetus Testamentum 26/2 (1976): 187-198. Longacre, Robert.E., ―The Discourse of the Flood Narrative.‖ Journal of the American Academy of Religion 47/1 (1979): 133. ______, ―Discourse Perspective on the Hebrew Verb: Affirmation and Restatement.‖ Pages 177-189 in Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew. Edited by Walter R. Bodine. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992. ______, ―Weqatal Forms in Biblical Hebrew Prose: A Discourse-modular Approach.‖ Pages 50-98 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Longman III, Tremper and Daniel G. Reid, God is a Warrior. Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995. Longman III, Tremper, ―Israelite Genres in Their Ancient Near Eastern Context.‖ Pages 177-195 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeny and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. Loprieno, Antonio, Ancient Egyptian: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Ludwig, Theodore M., ―The Traditions of the Establishing of the Earth in Deutero-Isaiah.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 92/3 (1973): 345-357. Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1992 Luttikhuizen, Gerard P., ―Biblical Narrative in Gnostic Revision: The Story of Noah and the Flood in Classic Gnostic Mythology.‖ Pages 109-123 in Interpretations of the Flood. Edited by Florentino García Martinez and Gerard P. Luttikhuizen. Themes in Biblical Narrative. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Lutz, H.F., ―The Ḏd-Emblem of Osiris.‖ Journal of the American Oriental Society 39 (1919): 196-205. MacKenzie, R.A.F., ―The Divine Soliloquies in Genesis.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 17 (1955): 277-286. Madigan, Kevin J. and Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection: The Power of God for Christians and Jews. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2008. Magonet, Jonathan, ―Character/Author/Reader: The Problem of Perspective in Biblical Narrative.‖ Pages 3-13 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L.J. de Regt, Jan de Waard, and J.P. Fokkelman. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996. Mallowan, M.E.L., ―Noah‘s Flood Reconsidered.‖ Iraq 26/2 (1964): 62-82. Mankowski, Paul V., Akkadian Loanwords in Biblical Hebrew. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000. Marcus, David, A Manual of Akkadian. New York: University Press of America, 1978. Margulis, B., ―A Ugaritic Psalm (RŠ 24.252).‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 89/3 (1970): 292-304.
339
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Martin, John, ―A Famine Element in the Flood Story.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 45 (1926): 129-133. Mathews, Kenneth A., Genesis 1–11.26. The New American Commentary, 1. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holdman Publishers, 1996. May, Herbert G., ―Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm, ‗Many Waters‘.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 74/1 (1955): 9-21. McCarter, Jr., P. Kyle, Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1986. McEvenue, Sean E., The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer. Analecta Biblica, 50. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1971. McKenzie, John L., ―Myth and the Old Testament.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 21/3 (1959): 265-282. McKenzie, Steven L., The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomistic History. Leiden: Brill, 1991. McNeile, A.H., The Book of Exodus. Westminster Commentary. London: Methuen & Co., 1908. Meissner, Bruno, Beiträge zum Assyrischen Wörterbuch II. The Oriental Institute of The University of Chicago Assyriological Studies, 4. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Melugin, Roy F., ―Deutero-Isaiah and Form Criticism.‖ Vetus Testamentum 21/3 (1971): 326-337. Meyers, Carol, ―Miriam the Musician.‖ Pages 207-230 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Vol.6 of The Feminist Companion to the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. ______, Exodus. The New Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Mikva, Rachel S., Midrash vaYosha: A Medieval Midrash on the Song at the Sea. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism, 28. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Millard, A.R., ―A New Babylonian ‗Genesis‘ Story.‖ Tyndale Bulletin 18 (1967): 3-18. Miller, Jr., Patrick D., The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973. ______, Genesis 1-11: Studies in Structure & Theme; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 8. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978. Milman, M., ―Noah and His Family.‖ The Monist 29/2 (1919): 259-292. Mitchell, Larry A., A Student‟s Vocabulary for Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1984. Mittmann, Siegfried, ―Komposition und Redaktion von Psalm XXIX.‖ Vetus Testamentum 28/2 (1978): 172- 194. Moberly, R.W.L., ―Why Did Noah Send Out a Raven?‖ Vetus Testamentum 50/3 (2000): 345-356. ______, The Theology of the Book of Genesis. Old Testament Theology (Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Morgenstern, Julian, ―Additional Notes on ‗The Three Calendars of Ancient Israel‘.‖ Hebrew Union College Annual 3 (1926): 77-107. ______, ―The Calendar of the Book of Jubilees, Its Origin and Its Character.‖ Vetus Testamentum 5/1 (1955): 34-76. ______, The Book of Genesis: A Jewish Interpretation. New York: Schocken Books, 1965. Morris, Henry J. and John C. Whitcomb Jr., ―The Genesis Flood—Its Nature and Significance.‖ Bibliotheca sacra 117/466 (1960): 204-213. Mowinckel, Sigmund, The Psalms in Israel‟s Worship. 2 vols. Translated by D.R. Ap-Thomas. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press, 1962. Moye, Richard H., ―In the Beginning: Myth and History in Genesis and Exodus.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 109/4 (1990): 577-598. Muilenburg, J., ―A Liturgy on the Triumphs of Yahweh.‖ Pages 233-251 in Studia Biblica et Semitica: Theodoro Christiano Vriezen…dedicata. Edited by Van Unnick and Van der Woude. Netherlands: H. Veenman & Zonen N.V, 1966. Müller, Hans-Peter, ―Das Motiv für die Sintflut: Die hermeneutische Funktion des Mythos und seiner Analyse.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 97/3 (1985): 295-316. Muraoka, T., A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven: Peeters, 2009 Murray, M.A., ―The Cult of the Drowned in Egypt.‖ Zeitschrift für ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 51 (1913): 127-135. Najm, S. and Ph. Guillaume, ―Jubilee Calendar Rescued from the Flood Narrative.‖ Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 5/1 (2004): 10pp. Nelson, Richard, ―The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History: The Case is Still Compelling.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29/3 (2005): 319-337. Nicccacci, Alviero, ―On the Hebrew Verbal System.‖ Pages 117-137 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Nicholson, Ernest, The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen. Oxford: Oxford
340
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
University Press, 1998. Niditch, Susan, Chaos to Cosmos: Studies in Biblical Patterns of Creation. Studies in the Humanities, 6. Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1985. ______, Folklore and the Hebrew Bible. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004. Nielsen, Eduard, Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction. Studies in Biblical Theology 11. London: SCM Press LTD, 1954. ______, ―Deuterojesaja: Erwagungen zur Formkritik, Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte.‖ Vetus Testamentum 20/2 (1970): 190-205. Nihan, Christophe, ―The Priestly Covenant, Its Reinterpretations, and the Composition of ‗P‘.‖ Pages 87-134 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. North, Christopher R., The Second Isaiah: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary to Chapters XL-LV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. Noth, Martin, berlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: die sammelnden und bearbeiten Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer, 1957. ______, Exodus, A Commentary. Translated by J.S. Bowden. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1962. O‘Rourke Boyle, Marjorie, ―‗In the Heart of the Sea‘: Fathoming the Exodus.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 63/1 (2004): 17-27. Oden, Robert A., Jr., ―Divine Aspirations in Atrahasis and in Genesis 1-11.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 93/2 (1981): 197-216. Oduyọye, Modupẹ, The Sons of the Gods and the Daughters of Men: An Afro-Asiatic Interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984. Olofsson, Staffan, Translation Technique and Theological Exegesis: Collected Essays on the Septuagint Version. Coniectanea Biblica Old Testament Series, 57. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2009. Olson, Dennis T., ―Literary and Rhetorical Criticism.‖ Pages 13-54 in Methods for Exodus. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman. Methods in Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Olson, Walter S., ―Has Science Dated the Biblical Flood?‖ Zygon 2/3 (1967): 272-278. Oppenheim, A. Leo, ―A Fiscal Practice of the Ancient Near East.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6/2 (1947): 116-120. ______, ed., The Assyrian Dictionary, vol. 4 E. Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute & Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1958. ______, ed., The Assyrian Dictionary, vol. 7 I and J. Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute & Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1960. ______, ed., The Assyrian Dictionary, vol. 2 B. Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute & Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2005. Orlinsky, Harry M. Understanding the Bible through History and Archaeology. New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1972. Otto, Eckart, ―Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus.‖ Pages 61-111 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 127. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______, ―A Hidden Truth Behind the Test or the Truth of the Text: At a Turning Point in Biblical Scholarship Two Hundred Years After de Wette‘s Dissertatio Critico-Exegetica.‖ Pages 19-28 in South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony . Edited by J. le Roux and E. Otto. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 463. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Owens, J. Edward, Narrative Criticism and Theology in Exodus 1-15. Ph.D. Dissertation, The Catholic University of America, 1996. Parpola, Simo, The Standard Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh. State Achieves of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, vol. I. Finland: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 1997. Parrott, Douglas M., ed., Nag Hammadi Codices V,2-5 and VI with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4. Nag Hammadi Studies, 11. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979. Patrick, Dale, ―Traditio-History of the Reed Sea Account.‖ Vetus Testamentum 26/2 (1976): 248-249. Patte, Daniel and Aline Patte, Structural Exegesis: From Theory to Practice. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1978. Patten, Donald W., ―The Biblical Flood: A Geographical Perspective.‖ Bibliotheca sacra 128/509 (1971): 36- 49. Patterson, Richard D., ―The Song of Redemption.‖ Westminster Theological Journal 57/2 (1995): 453-461. ______, ―Victory at Sea: Prose and Poetry in Exodus 14-15.‖ Bibliotheca sacra 161/641 (2004): 42-54. Pederson, Johannes, ―Passahfest und Passahlegende.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 52
341
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
(1934): 161-175. Perrin, Nicholas, ―On Raising Osiris in 1 Corinthians 15.‖ Tyndale Bulletin 58/1 (2007): 117-128. Perrin, Norman, What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1969. Peters, Dorothy M., Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conversations and Controversies of Antiquity. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature, 26. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2008. Peters, Melvin K.H., ed., Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch, vol.1 Genesis. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 19. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1985. ______, Critical Edition of the Coptic (Bohairic) Pentateuch, vol.2 Exodus. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies, 22. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1986. Peterson, David L., ―The Yahwist on the Flood.‖ Vetus Testamentum 26/4 (1976): 438-446. ______, ―Genesis 6:1-4, Yahweh and the Organization of the Cosmos.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 13/3 (1979): 47-64. Pierret, Paul, ―The Dogma of the Resurrection among the Ancient Egyptians.‖ Translated by Howard Osgood. The Old Testament Student 4/6 (1885): 267-275. Pinch, Geraldine, Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt. Oxford: University Press, 2002. Pindar. The Odes of Pindar, including The Principle Fragments. Translated by John Sandys. Loeb Classical Library. New York: G.P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1927. Pinker, Aaron, ―The Lord‘s Bow in Habakkuk 3,9a.‖ Biblica 84/3 (2003): 417-420. Pixley, George V., On Exodus: A Liberation Perspective. Translated by Robert R. Barr. Maryknoll, New York, 1987. Pixley, Jorge, ―Liberation Criticism.‖ Pages 131-162 in Methods for Exodus. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman. Methods in Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Plastaras, James, The God of Exodus: The Theology of the Exodus Narratives. Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1966. ______, Creation and Covenant. Milwaukee, Wisc.: Bruce Publishing Company, 1968. Pola, Thomas, Die ursprüngliche Priesterschrift: Beobachtungen zur Literarkritik und Traditionsgeschichte von PG. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 70. Neukirchen-Vyuyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995. Porten, Bezalel and Uriel Rappaport, ―Poetic Structure in Genesis IX 7.‖ Vetus Testamentum 21/3 (1971): 363- 369. Powell, Mark Allan, What is Narrative Criticism? Edited by Dan O. Via Jr. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1990. Pratico, Gary D. and Miles V. Van Pelt, Basics of Biblical Hebrew Grammar. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2001. Preuss, Horst Dietrich, Old Testament Theology, vol.2. Translated by Leo G. Perdue. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1996. Priest, James E., ―Gen 9:6: A Comparative Study of Bloodshed in Bible and Talmud.‖ Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 31/2 (1988): 145-151. Pritchard, James B., ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. 3rd ed. with Supplement. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1969. Propp, William H.C., ―The Priestly Source Recovered Intact?‖ Vetus Testamentum 46/4 (1996): 458-478. ______, Exodus 1-18. Anchor Bible, 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. Purvis, James D., The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect. Harvard Semitic Monographs, 2. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968. de Pury, Albert, ―Gottesname, Gottesbezeichnung und Gottesbegriff: ‟Elohim als Indiz zur Entstehungsgeschichte des Pentateuch.‖ Pages 25-47 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. ______, ―PG as Absolute Beginning.‖ Pages 99-128 in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L‟Hexateuque et de L‟Ennéateuque. Edited by T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 203. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007. de Pury, Albert and Thomas Römer, ―Le Pentateuque en question. Position du problème et brève histoire de la recherche.‖ Pages 9-80 in Le Pentateuque en Question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer and Samuel Amsler. Genève: Labor & Fides, 2002. von Rad, Gerhard, Genesis, rev. ed. Translated by John H. Marks. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1961. ______, The Problem of the Hexateuch, and other essays. Translated by E.W. Trueman Dicken. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
342
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
______, ―The Interpretation of the Old Testament, II; Typological Interpretations of the Old Testament.‖ Translated by John Bright. Interpretation 15/2 (1961): 174-192. ______, Old Testament Theology, vol.1: The Theology of Israel‟s Historical Traditions. Translated by D.M.G. Stalker. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. Rank, Otto, The Myth of the Birth of the Hero and Other Writings. New York: Vintage Books, 1964. Rast, Walter E., Tradition History and the Old Testament. Edited by Gene M. Tucker. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia, Minn.: Fortress Press, 1972. Redford, Donald B., ―Exodus I 11.‖ Vetus Testamentum 13/4 (1963): 401-418. ______, ―The Literary Motif of the Exposed Child (cf. Ex. ii 1-10).‖ Numen 14/3 (1967): 209-228. ______, ―The Land of Ramesses.‖ Pages 175-177 in Causing His Name to Live: Studies in Egyptian Epigraphy and History in Memory of William J. Murnane. Edited by Peter J. Brand and Louise Cooper. Leiden: Brill, 2009. de Regt, Lénart J., ―The Order of Participants in Clausal Elements in the Pentateuch and Earlier Prophets: Syntax, Convention or Rhetoric?‖ Pages 79-100 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L.J. de Regt, Jan de Waard, and J.P. Fokkelman. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996. Reik, Theodor, Myth and Guilt: The Crime and Punishment of Mankind. New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1970. Reiner, Erica, ed., The Assyrian Dictionary, vol.13 Q. Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute & Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1982. ______, The Assyrian Dictionary, vol.17 pt.III Š. Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute & Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1992. Rendsburg, Gary A., ―Late Biblical Hebrew and the Date of ‗P‘.‖ Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society 12 (1980): 65-80. ______, Redaction of Genesis. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns,1986. ______, ―The Biblical Flood Story in the Light of the Gilgameš Flood Account.‖ Pages 113-127 in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21-23 July 2004. Edited by Joseph Azize and Noel Weeks. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 21. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Rendtorff, Rolf, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 17. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1977. ______, ―The ‗Yahwist‘ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism.‖ Translated by D.J.A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 3 (1977): 2-10. ______, ―Pentateuchal Studies on the Move.‖ Translated by D.J.A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 3 (1977): 43-45. ______, ―‗Covenant‘ as a Structuring Concept in Genesis and Exodus.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 108/3 (1989): 385-393. ______, The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch. Translated by John J. Scullion. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 89. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. ______, ―A Christian Approach to the Theology of Hebrew Scriptures.‖ Pages 137-151 in Jews, Christians, and the Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures. Edited by Alice Ogden Bellis and Joel S. Kaminsky. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 8. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2000. ______, ―L‘histoire biblique des origines (Gen 1-11) dans le contexte de la rédaction « sacerdotale » du Pentateuque.‖ Pages 83-94 in Le Pentateuque en Question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer and Samuel Amsler. Translated by Samuel Amsler. Genève: Labor & Fides, 2002. ______, The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. Translation by David E. Orton. Tools for Biblical Studies, 7. Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2005. Revell, E.J., ―The Repetition of Introductions to Speech as a Feature of Biblical Hebrew.‖ Vetus Testamentum 47/1 (1997): 91-110. Ridderbos, N.H., ―Genesis i 1 und 2.‖ Oudtestamentische Studiën 12 (1958): 214-260. Riekert, S.J.P.K., ―The Struct Patterns of the Paronomastic and Co-ordinated Infinitives Absolute in Genesis.‖ Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 7 (1979): 69-83. Richter, W., Exegese als Literaturwissen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971. Roberts, J.J.M., Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1991. Robertson, David A., Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series, 3. Missoula, Mont.: SBL Press, 1972. Roeder, Günther, Naos. Catalogue Général des Antiquités Égyptiennes du Musée du Caire. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1914. Rogerson, J., Genesis 1-11. Old Testament Guides. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991.
343
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Rogerson, J.W., Myth in Old Testament Interpretation. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 134. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974. Rogland, Max, ―Interpreting d) in Genesis 2.5-6: Neglected Rabbinic and Intertextual Evidence.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 34/2 (2010): 379-393. Römer, Thomas, ―Transformations in Deuteronomistic and Biblical Historiography: On ‗Book Finding‘ and Other Literary Strategies.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 109/1 (1997): 1-10. ______, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. ______, ―The Elusive Yahwist: A Short History of Research.‖ Pages 9-28 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 34. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006. ______, ―La construction du Pentateuque, de l‘Hexateuque et de l‘Ennéateuque: Investigations préliminairs sur la formation des grands ensembles littéraires de la Bible hébraïque.‖ Pages 9-34 in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L‟Hexateuque et de L‟Ennéateuque. Edited by T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 203. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007. ______, ―The Exodus Narrative According to the Priestly Document.‖ Pages 157-174 in The Strata of the Priestly Writings: Contemporary Debate and Future Directions. Edited by Sarah Shectman and Joel S. Baden. Abhandlungen zur Theologie des Alten und Neuen Testaments, 95. Zürich: Theologischer Verlag Zürich, 2009. ______, ―Extra-Pentateuchal Biblical Evidence for the Existence of a Pentateuch? The Case of the ‗Historical Summaries,‘ Especially in the Psalms.‖ Pages 471-488 in The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Konrad Schmid, and Baruch Schwartz. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 78. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. ______, ―How Many Books (teuchs): Pentateuch, Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History, or Enneateuch?‖ Pages 25-42 in Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas Römer, and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Ancient Israel and Its Literature, 8. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2011. Römer, Thomas and Konrad Schmid, ―Introduction: Pentateuque, Hexateuque, Ennéateuque: Exposé du Problème.‖ Pages 1-7 in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L‟Hexateuque et de L‟Ennéateuque. Edited by T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 203. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007. Rösel, Martin, ―Inscriptural Evidence and the Question of Genre.‖ Pages 107-121 in The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Marvin A. Sweeny and Ehud Ben Zvi. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003. Rosenberg, David, The Book of J. Translated by Harold Bloom. New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990. Roth, Martha T., ed., The Assyrian Dictionary, vol. 12 P. Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute & Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2005. ______, The Assyrian Dictionary, vol.19 Ṭ. Chicago, Ill.: Oriental Institute, 2006. le Roux, Jurie, ―Setting the Scene: The Battle of the Signs.‖ Pages 1-18 in South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony. Edited by J. le Roux and E. Otto. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 463. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Rozelaar, Marc, ―The Song of the Sea (Exodus XV, 1b-18).‖ Vetus Testamentum 2/3 (1953): 221-228. Rowton, M.B., ―The Date of the Sumerian King List.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 19/2 (1960): 156-162. Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M., ―The Interpretation of the Flood Story in the Book of Jubilees.‖ Pages 66-85 in Interpretations of the Flood. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Gerardus P. Luttikhuizen. Themes in Biblical Narrative, 1. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Russell, Brian D., The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1-21. Studies in Biblical Literature, 101. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Russell, Stephen C., Images of Egypt in Early Biblical Literature: Cisjordan-Israelite, Transjordan-Israelite, and Judahite Portrayals. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 403. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009. Ryou, Daniel Hoojon, Zephaniah‟s Oracles Against the Nations: A Synchronic & Diachronic Study of Zephaniah 2:1–3:8. Biblical Interpretation Series, 13. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Sailhamer, John H., The Pentateuch as Narrative, A Biblical-Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1992. Sarna, Nahum M., Understanding Genesis; The Melton Research Center Series, vol.1. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966. ______, Exploring Exodus: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken Books, 1986. ______, Genesis ty#)rb. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.
344
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
______, Exodus twm#. The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991. Sasson, Jack M., ―Word-Play in Gen 6:8-9.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37/2 (1975): 165-166. Scheffler, Eben, ―Criticism of Government: Deuteronomy 17:14-20 Between (and Beyond) Synchrony and Diachrony.‖ Pages 124-137 in South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony. Edited by J. le Roux and E. Otto. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 463. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Schierling, Marla J., ―Primeval Woman: A Yahwistic View of Woman in Genesis 1-11.9.‖ Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 42/1 (1983): 5-9. Schmid, H.H., Der sogennante Jahwist. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1976. Schmid, Konrad, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 81. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999. ______, ―The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap between Genesis and Exodus.‖ Pages 29-50 in A Farewell to the Yahwist?: The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman and Konrad Schmid. Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, 34. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2006. ______, ―Une grande historiographie allant de Genèse à 2 Rois a-t-elle un jour existé?‖ Pages 35-45 in Les Dernières Rédactions du Pentateuque, de L‟Hexateuque et de L‟Ennéateuque. Edited by T. Rӧmer and K. Schmid. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 203. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2007. ______, Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel's Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible. Translated by James Nogalski. Siphrut, 3. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2010. ______, ―Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel.‖ Biblica 93/2 (2012): 187-208. Schmidt, Hans, ―Das Meerslied. Ex 15.2-19.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 49 (1931): 59- 66. Schmidt, Ludwig, ―Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus durch die Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39-50*) und Exodus 1.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 124/1 (2012): 19-37. Schmidt, Werner H., Exodus I: 1,1–6,30. Biblischer Kommentar Altes Testament II/1. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag des Erziehungsverein, 1988. ______, Old Testament Introduction. 2nd ed. Translated by Matthew J. O‘Connell. New York: de Gruyter, 1999. Schoedel, William R., ed. and trans., Athenagoras: Legatio and De Resurrectione. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Schoors, Antoon, I Am God Your Saviour: A Form-Critical Study of the Main Genres in Is. XL-LV. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 24. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973. Schrader, Lutz, ―Kommentierende Redaktion im Noah-Sintflut-Komplex der Genesis.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 110/4 (1998): 489-502. Schüle, Andreas, Die Urgeschichte (Gen 1 - 11). Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 2009. Scott, William R., A Symplified Guide to BHS. 4th ed. N. Richland Hills, Tex: BIBAL Press, 2007. Scullion, John J., ―Mӓrchen, Sage, Legende: Towards Clarification of some Literary Terms used by Old Testament Scholars.‖ Vetus Testamentum 34/3 (1984): 321-336. Seebass, Horst, ―Que reste-t-il du Yahwiste et de l‘Élohiste?‖ Pages 199-214 in Le Pentateuque en Question: Les origines et la composition des cinq premiers livres de la Bible à la lumière des recherches récentes. Edited by A. de Pury, T. Römer, and Samuel Amsler. Translated by Albert de Pury. Genève: Labor & Fides, 2002. Seely, Paul H., ―Noah‘s Flood: Its Date, Extent, and Divine Accommodation.‖ Westminster Theological Journal 66/2 (2004): 291-311. Sethe, Kurt, ―Die beiden alters Lieder von der Trinkstatte in den Darstellungen des Luksorfestzuges.‖ Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 64/1 (1929): 1-5. Seton-Williams, M.V., Egyptian Legends and Stories. New York: Fall River Press, 1999. Shaviv, Samuel, ―The Polytheistic Origins of the Biblical Flood Narrative.‖ Vetus Testamentum 54/4 (2004): 527-548. Shectman, Sarah, Women in the Pentateuch: A Feminist and Source-Critical Analysis. Hebrew Bible Monographs, 23. Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2009. Shreckhise, Robert, ―The Rhetoric of the Expression in the Song by the Sea (Exodus 15,1-18).‖ Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 21/2 (2007): 201-217. ______, ―The Problem of Finite Verb Translation in Exodus 15.1-18.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32/3 (2008): 287-310. Siebert-Hommes, Jopie, Let the Daughters Live! The Literary Architecture of Exodus 1-2 as a Key for Interpretation. Translated by Janet W. Dyk. Biblical Interpretation Series, 37. Leiden: Brill, 1998.
345
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Simons, J., The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament: A Concise Commentary in XXXII Chapters. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1959. Simoons-Vermeer, Ruth E., ―The Mesopotamian Floodstories: A Comparison and Interpretation.‖ Numen 21/1 (1974): 17-34. Ska, Jean-Louis, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives. Subsidia Biblica 13. Roma: Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblico, 1990. ______, ―The Yahwist, a Hero with a Thousand Faces. A Chapter in the History of Modern Exegesis.‖ Pages 1- 23 in Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion. Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Konrad Schmid, and Markus Witte; Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 315. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002. ______, The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 66. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Skinner, John, Genesis. International Critical Commentary, 1. New York: Charles Scribner‘s Sons, 1910. Smith, George Adam, The Early Poetry of Israel in its Physical and Social Origins. London: Oxford, 1912. Smith, George, ―The Chaldean Account of the Deluge.‖ Pages 29-48 in The Flood Myth. Edited by Alan Dundes. Berkley: University of California Press, 1988. Smith, Mark S., The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol.1. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 55. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ______, ―The Literary Arrangement of the Priestly Redaction of Exodus: A Preliminary Investigation.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 58/1 (1996): 25-50. ______, with Elizabeth M. Block-Smith, The Pilgrimage Pattern in Exodus; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 239. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997. ______, Exodus. The New Collegeville Bible Commentary, 3. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2011. Smith, Mark S. and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, vol.2; Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 114. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Snaith, Norman H., Notes on the Hebrew Text of Genesis I-VIII. London: The Epworth Press, 1947. ______, ―PwOs-My: The Sea of Reeds: The Red Sea.‖ Vetus Testamentum 15/3 (1965): 395-398. Soggin, J. Alberto, Introduction to the Old Testament: From its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon. 3rd ed. Translated by John Bowden. Old Testament Library. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1989. Sophocles. Oedipus the King, Oedipus at Colonus, Antigone, vol.1. Translated by F. Storr. Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1946. Sommer, Benjamin D., ―Exegesis, Allusion and Intertextuality in the Hebrew Bible: A Response to Lyle Eslinger.‖ Vetus Testamentum 44/4 (1996): 479-489. Sparks Kenton L., ―Enūma Elish and Priestly Mimesis: Elite Emulation in Nascent Judaism.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 126/4 (2007): 625-648. ______, ―Genre Criticism.‖ Pages 55-94 in Methods for Exodus. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman. Methods in Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Speiser, E.A., ―‟ED in the Story of Creation.‖ Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 140 (1955): 9-11. ______, Genesis. Anchor Bible, 1. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2007. Sperber, Alexander, ed., The Bible in Aramaic, vol.1 Pentateuch (Targum Onkelos). Leiden: Brill, 1959. Spronk, Klaas, ―The picture of Moses in the history of interpretation.‖ Pages 253-264 in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelius Houtman. Edited by Riemer Roukema, et al. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 44. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Stanton, R. Todd, ―Asking Questions of the Divine Announcements in the Flood Stories from Ancient Mesopotamia and Israel.‖ Pages 147-172 in Gilgameš and the World of Assyria: Proceedings of the Conference held at Mandelbaum House, The University of Sydney, 21-23 July 2004. Edited by Joseph Azize and Noel Weeks. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, 21. Leuven: Peeters, 2007. Stec, David M., The Targum of Psalms. The Aramaic Bible, vol.16. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2004. Steck, Odil Hannes, Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology. 2nd ed. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Society of Biblical Literature Resources for Biblical Study, 39. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1998. Steinberg, Naomi, ―Feminist Criticism.‖ Pages 163-192 in Methods for Exodus. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman. Methods in Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Sternberg, Meir, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1985. Stevenson, Mrs. Cornelius, ―An Egyptian Mummy-Case.‖ Bulletin of the Pennsylvania Museum 7/28 (1909): 67-70. Steymans, Hans Ulrich, ―The Blessings in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33: Awareness of Intertextuality.‖
346
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Pages 71-89 in South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony. Edited by J. le Roux and E. Otto. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 463. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Strauß, Hans, ―Das Meerlied des Mose–ein »Siegeslied« Israels? (Bemerkungen zur theologischen Exegese von Ex 15,1-19.20f).‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 97 (1985): 103-109. Stone, Lawson G., ―Redaction Criticism: Whence, Whither, and Why? Or Going Beyond Source and Form Criticism Without Leaving Them Behind.‖ Lexington Theological Quarterly 27/4 (1992): 105-118. Stuart, Douglas K., Studies in Early Hebrew Meter. Harvard Semitic Monographs, 13. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1976. ______, Exodus. The New American Commentary, 2. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman & Holdman Publishers, 2006. Sutcliffe, E.F., ―The Clouds as Water Carriers in Hebrew Thought.‖ Vetus Testamentum 3/1 (1953): 99-103. Sweeney, Marvin A., ―Form Criticism.‖ Pages 58-89 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Applications. Revised and expanded. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999. Talon, Philippe, The Standard Babylonian Myth Enūma Eliš. State Archives of Assyria Cuneiform Texts, vol. IV. Finland: Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy, 2005. Talstra, E., Solomon‟s Prayer: Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of I Kings 8, 14-61. Translation by Gonni Runia-Deenick. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 3. Kampen, Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House, 1993. ______, ―A Hierarchy of Clauses in Biblical Hebrew Narrative.‖ Pages 85-113 in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Edited by Ellen Van Wolde. Biblical Interpretation Series, 29. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______, ―Syntax and composition: The use of yiqtol in narrative sections in the book of Exodus.‖ Pages 225-236 in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelius Houtman . Edited by Riemer Roukema, et al. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 44. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Tenney, Merrill C. and Moisés Silva, eds., The Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible, rev. ed. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2009. Tigay, Jeffery H., The Evolution of the Gilgamesh Epic. Wauconda, Ill.: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc., 2002. Tolmie, D.F., Narratology and Biblical Narratives: A Practical Guide. London: International Scholars Press, 1999. Tov, Emanuel, ―Loan-words, Homophony and Transliteration in the Septuagint.‖ Biblica 60/3 (1979): 216-236. ______, ―Did the Septuagint Translators Always Understand their Hebrew Text?‖ Pages in De 53-70 in Septuaginta: Studies in Honour of John William Wevers on his sixty-fifth birthday. Edited by Albert Pietersma and Claude Cox. Benben Publications, 1984. ______, ―The Nature and Background of Harmonization in Biblical Manuscripts.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 31 (1985): 3-29. ______, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Fortress Press, 2001. Towers, John Roberts, ―The Red Sea.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 18/2 (1959): 150-153. Trible, Phyllis, ―Bringing Miriam out of the Shadows.‖ Pages 166-186 in A Feminist Companion to Exodus to Deuteronomy. Edited by Athalya Brenner. Vol.6 of The Feminist Companion to the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Tsumura, David Toshio ―Literary Insertion (AXB Pattern) in Biblical Hebrew.‖ Vetus Testamentum 33/4 (1983): 468-482. ______, Creation and Destruction: A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old Testament. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Tucker, Gene M., Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Edited by J. Coert Rylaarsdam. Guides to Biblical Scholarship. Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1971. Turner, Laurence A., ―The Rainbow as the Sign of the Covenant in Genesis IX 11-13.‖ Vetus Testamentum 43/1 (1993): 119-124. ______, Genesis. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000. Ullendorff, Edward, ―The Construction of Noah‘s Ark.‖ Vetus Testamentum 4/1 (1954): 95-96. Ulrich, Eugene and Frank Moore Cross, et al., Qumran Cave 4 VII: Genesis to Numbers. Discoveries in the Judean Desert, XII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Van Den Eynde, Sabine, ―The Missing Link, tyrb in the Flood Narrative: Meaning and Peculiarities of a Hebrew Key Word.‖ Pages 467-478 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. ______, ―Between Rainbow and Reform: A Gender Analysis of the Term tyrb in the Hebrew Bible.‖ Zeitschrift
347
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 116/3 (2004): 409-415. Van Dyke Parunak, H., ―The Discourse Implications of Resumption in Hebrew r#$e)a: Clauses: A Preliminary Assessment from Genesis.‖ Pages 101-116 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L.J. de Regt, Jan de Waard, and J.P. Fokkelman. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996. Van der Plas, Dirk, De Hymne aan de Overstroming van de Nijl (= L‟Hymne à la Crue du Nil). Ph.D. diss., Utrecht, 1980. Van der Merwe, C.H.J., ―Discourse Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew Grammar.‖ Pages 13-49 in Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Analysis. Edited by Robert D. Bergen. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Van der Merwe, C.H.J. and E. Talstra, ―Biblical Hebrew Word Order: The Interface of Information Structure and Formal Features.‖ Zeitschrift für Althebraistik 15/16 (2002/2003): 68-107. VanderKam, James C., ―The Textual Affinities of the Biblical Citations in the Genesis Apocryphon.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 97/1 (1978): 45-55. VanGemeren, Willem A., ed., New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Van Seters, John, ―Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period.‖ Vetus Testamentum 22/1 (1972): 448-459. ______, Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1975. ______, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. ______, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ______, ―The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the gap between two origin traditions.‖ Pages 1-15 in The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelius Houtman. Edited by Riemer Roukema, et al. Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, 44. Leuven: Peeters, 2006. Van Wolde, Ellen, ―A Text-Semantic Study of the Hebrew Bible, Illustrated with Noah and Job.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 113/1 (1994): 19-35. ______, Words Become Worlds: Semantic Studies of Genesis 1-11. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ______, ―The Text as an Eloquent Guide: Rhetorical, Linguistic and Literary Features in Genesis 1.‖ Pages 134- 151 in Literary Structure and Rhetorical Strategies in the Hebrew Bible. Edited by L.J. de Regt, Jan de Waard, and J.P. Fokkelman. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1996. ______, ―Linguistic Motivation and Biblical Exegesis.‖ Pages 21-50 in Narrative Syntax and the Hebrew Bible: Papers of the Tilburg Conference 1996. Edited by Ellen Van Wolde. Biblical Interpretation Series, 29. Leiden: Brill, 1997. ______, ―Facing the Earth: Primaeval History in a New Perspective.‖ Pages 22-47 in The World of Genesis: Persons, Places, Perspectives. Edited by Philip R. Davies and David J.A. Clines. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 257. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. Vaux, Roland de, Ancient Israel: its life and institutions. Translated by John McHugh. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1961. Vaux, R. de, Bible et Orient. Les Éditions De Cerf, 24. Paris: Boulevard Latour-Maubourg, 1967. Venter, Pieter M., ―Synchrony and Diachrony in Apocalyptic Studies.‖ Pages 185-196 in South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch Between Synchrony and Diachrony. Edited by J. le Roux and E. Otto. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, 463. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Vervenne, Marc, ―Metaphors of Destruction in Exodus 15:8.‖ Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 24/2 (1998): 179-194. ______, ―Genesis 1,1-2,4. The Compositional Texture of the Priestly Overture to the Pentateuch.‖ Pages 35-79 in Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History. Edited by André Wénin. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 155. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2001. Vincent, Mark A., ―The Song of Deborah: A Structural and Literary Consideration.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 91/4 (2000): 61-82. Viviano, Pauline A., ―Source Criticism.‖ Pages 35-57 in To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and their Applications. Revised and expanded. Edited by Steven L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999. Volz, P. and W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als Erzähler. Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik? An der Genesis Erläutert. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 63. Gießen: Töpelmann, 1933. Vriezen, Th. C., ―Exodusstudien Exodus I.‖ Vetus Testamentum 17/3 (1967): 334-353. Wagenaar, Jan A., Origin and Transformation of the Ancient Israelite Festival Calendar. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Altorientalische und Biblische Rechtsgeschichte, 6. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz Verlag, 2005. Wagner, Norman E., ―A Response to Professor Rolf Rendtorff.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 3 (1977): 20-27. Wakeman, Mary K., ―The Biblical Earth Monster in the Cosmogonic Combat Myth.‖ Journal of Biblical
348
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Literature 88/3 (1969): 313-320. ______, God‟s Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery. Leiden: Brill, 1973 Waldstein, Michael and Frederik Wisse, eds., The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III,1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2. Nag Hammadi Studies, 33. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1995. Walsh, Jerome T., Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative. Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2001. ______, Old Testament Narrative: A Guide to Interpretation. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009. Walton, John, ―The Antediluvian Section of the Sumerian King List and Genesis 5.‖ Biblical Archaeologist 44/4 (1981): 207-208. Ward, William A., ―The Semitic Biconsonantal Root SP and the Common Origin of Egyptian ČWF and Hebrew SÛP: ‗Marsh(-Plant)‘.‖ Vetus Testamentum 24/3 (1974): 339-349. Warner, Sean M., ―Primitive Saga Men.‖ Vetus Testamentum 29/3 (1979): 325-335. Warnke, Annekatrin, ―Die Verbformen mit dem Suffix ‗w$m-‘ als Kernelemente der Textstruktur von Ex 15,1b- 18.‖ Biblica 83/3 (2002): 399-408. Wasserstein, Abraham and David J. Wasserstein, The Legend of the Septuagint: From Classical Antiquity to Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Watson, Wilfred G.E., Classical Hebrew Poetry: A Guide to its Techniques. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 26. Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1984. Watts, John D. W., ―The Song of the Sea–Ex. XV,‖ Vetus Testamentum 7/4 (1957): 371-380. Watts, James W., Psalm and Story: Inset Hymns in Hebrew Narrative. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series, 139. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992. Weber, Beat, ―‗...jede Tochter aber sollt ihr am Leben lassen!‘—Beobachtungen zu Ex 1,15–2,10 und seinem Kontext aus literaturwissenschftlicher Perspektive.‖ Biblische Notizen 55 (1990): 47-76. Weimar, Peter, ―Exodus 1,1-2,10 als Eröffnungskomposition des Exodusbusches.‖ Pages 177-208 in Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction–Reception–Interpretation. Edited by Marc Vervenne. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 127. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996. ______, Studien zur Priesterschrift. Forschungen zum Alten Testament, 56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Weingreen, J., From Bible to Mishna: The Continuity of Tradition. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1976. Weiser, Artur, The Psalms. Translated by Herbert Hartwell. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 1962. Wellhausen, Julius, Geschichte Israels I: Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels. Berlin: Reimer, 1878. Wenham, Gordon J., ―The Coherence of the Flood Narrative.‖ Vetus Testamentum 28/3 (1978): 336-348. ______, Genesis 1-15. Word Biblical Commentary, 1. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1987. ______, ―Genesis: An Authorship Study and Current Pentateuchal Criticism.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 42/1 (1988): 3-18. ______, ―Method in Pentateuchal Source Criticism.‖ Vetus Testamentum 41/1 (1991): 84-109. ______, ―The Priority of P.‖ Vetus Testamentum 49/2 (1999): 240-258. Westermann, Claus, Isaiah 40-66: A Commentary. Translated by David M.G. Stalker. Old Testament Library. Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster Press, 2001. ______, Elements of Old Testament Theology. Translated by Douglas W. Stott. Atlanta, Ga.: John Knox Press, 1982. ______, Genesis 1-11. Continental Commentary, 1. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994. ______, Genesis 12-36. Continental Commentary, 2. Translated by John J. Scullion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995. Wevers, John William, Notes on the Greek text of Exodus. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies Series, 30. Atlanta, Ga.: Scholars Press, 1990. Whitcomb, John C. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood: The Biblical Record and Its Scientific Implications. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1961. White, Hugh C., Narration and Discourse in the Book of Genesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Wicke, Donald W., ―The Literary Structure of Exodus 1:2-2:10.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 24/4 (1982): 99-107. Wilcoxen, J.A., ―Narrative.‖ Pages 57-98 in Old Testament Form Criticism. Edited by John H. Hayes. San Antonio, Tex.: Trinity University Press, 1974. Wifall, Walter, ―The Sea of Reeds as Sheol.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 92 (1980): 325- 332. Willi-Plein, Ina, ―Ort und Literarische Funktion der Geburtsgeschichte des Mose,‖ Vetus Testamentum 41/1 (1991): 110-118.
349
Stellenbosch University http://scholar.sun.ac.za
Williams, Ronald J., Hebrew Syntax, An Outline. 2nd ed. Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1976. Wilson, John A., ―Funeral Services of the Egyptian Old Kingdom.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 3/4 (1944): 201-218. ______, ―The Theban Tomb (No. 409) of Si-Mut, Called Kiki.‖ Journal of Near Eastern Studies 29/3 (1970): 187-192. Wilson, Robert R., Genealogy and History in the Biblical World. Yale Near Eastern Researchers, 7. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. Winnett, Frederick V., ―Re-examining the Foundations.‖ Journal of Biblical Literature 84/1 (1965): 1-19. Witte, Markus, Die biblische Urgeschichte: Redaktions- und theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1-11,26. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentlische Wissenschaft, 265. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1998. Wolf, Walther, Das schöne Fest von Opet: die Festzugsdarstellung im grossen Säulengange des Tempels von Luksor. Veröffentlichungen der Ernst von Sieglin-Expedition, 5. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs‘sche Buchhandlung, 1931. Wolff, Hans Walter, ―The Kerygma of the Yahwist.‖ Translated by Wilbur A. Benware. Interpretation 22/2 (1966): 131-158. ______, ―The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch.‖ Translated by Keith R. Crim. Interpretation 26/2 (1972): 158-173. Wolters, Al, ―Not Rescue but Destruction: Rereading Exodus 15:8.‖ Catholic Biblical Quarterly 52/2 (1990): 223-240. Wong, Gregory T.K., ―Song of Deborah as Polemic.‖ Biblica 88/1 (2007): 1-22. Woolley, Leonard, ―Stories of the Creation and the Flood.‖ Pages 89-99 in The Flood Myth. Edited by Alan Dundes. Berkley: University of California Press, 1988. Woudstra, Marten H., ―The Toledot of the Book of Genesis and Their Redemptive-Historical Significance.‖ Calvin Theological Journal 5/2 (1970): 184-189. Wright III, Benjamin G., ―Noah and the Flood in the Septuagint.‖ Pages 137-142 in Noah and His Book(s). Edited by Michael E. Stone, Aryeh Amihay, and Vered Hillel. Society of Biblical Literature Early Judaism and Its Literature, 28. Atlanta, Ga.: SBL Press, 2010. Würthwein, Ernst, The Text of the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Translated by Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. Yahuda, A.S., Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian, Part 1. London: Humphrey Milford & Oxford University Press, 1933. Yee, Gale A., ―Postcolonial Biblical Criticism.‖ Pages 193-233 in Methods for Exodus. Edited by Thomas B. Dozeman. Methods in Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Yona, Shamir, ―A Type of Expanded Repetition in Biblical Parallelism.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 119/4 (2007): 586-601. Young, Davis A., Creation and the Flood: An Alternative to Flood Geology and Theistic Evolution. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1977. ______, The Biblical Flood: A Case Study of the Church‟s Response to Extrabiblical Evidence. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1995. Youngblood, Ronald F. The Book of Genesis: An Introductory Commentary. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House, 1991. Zehnder, Markus, ―Cause or Value? Problems in the Understanding of Gen 9,6a.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 122/2 (2010): 81-89. Zenger, Erich, ―Tradition und Interpretation in Exodus XV 1-21.‖ Pages 452-483 in Congress Volume: Vienna 1980. Edited by J.A. Emerton. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, 32. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Zevit, Ziony, ―Deuteronomistic Historiography in 1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17 and the Reinvestiture of the Israelian Cult.‖ Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985): 57-73. Zimmerli, Walther, Old Testament Theology in Outline. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978. Zimmern, Heinrich, The Babylonian and The Hebrew Genesis, No.III. Translated by J. Hutchison. London: David Nutt, 1901. ______, Akkadische Fremdwörter als Beweis für babylonische Kultureinfluss. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1915. Zipor, Moshe A., ―A Note on Genesis VI 13.‖ Vetus Testamentum 41/3 (1991): 366-369. Zlotnick-Sivan, H., ―Moses the Persian? Exodus 2, the ›Other‹ and Biblical ›Mnemohistory‹.‖ Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentlische Wissenschaft 116/2 (2004): 189-205. Zuurmond, R., ―Het bijbelse verhaal: verteller en vertaler.‖ „– wie het leest lette er op! –‟ een bundel bijbelvertaal-vragen, 41 (1970): 2504-2511.
350